Rush is off base with his ugly suggestion to Revkin

Rush Limbaugh stepped over a line of bad taste today during his radio broadcast.

Image: RushLimbaugh.com

Image: RushLimbaugh.com

While I don’t often agree with  Andy Revkin, I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of an ugly suggestion like what Rush uttered today, transcript below:

I think these militant environmentalists, these wackos, have so much in common with the jihad guys. Let me explain this. What do the jihad guys do? The jihad guys go to families under their control and they convince these families to strap explosives on who? Not them. On their kids. Grab your 3-year-old, grab your 4-year-old, grab your 6-year-old, and we’re gonna strap explosives on there, and then we’re going to send you on a bus, or we’re going to send you to a shopping center, and we’re gonna tell you when to pull the trigger, and you’re gonna blow up, and you’re gonna blow up everybody around you, and you’re gonna head up to wherever you’re going, 73 virgins are gonna be there. The little 3- or 4-year-old doesn’t have the presence of mind, so what about you? If it’s so great up there, why don’t you go? Why don’t you strap explosives on you — and their parents don’t have the guts to tell the jihad guys, “You do it! Why do you want my kid to go blow himself up?” The jihad guys will just shoot ‘em, ’cause the jihad guys have to maintain control.

The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?

UPDATE: You can read it in entirety here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125112.guest.html

At least Revkin takes it in stride in his column:

I’d like to think that Rush Limbaugh was floating a thought experiment, and not seriously proposing something, when he told millions of listeners the following: “Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself, and help the planet by dying.”

Rush should apologize, IMHO. We don’t need this sort of thing in any discussion. Disagree, argue, cite studies, yell if need be, but do not say this sort of ugly thing.

===

UPDATE: I posted this in comments, and I’m moving it here so that people can read it before jumping top the comment form.

With 188 over 270 comments, I think most everybody has had their say. Some say I was wrong to criticize, others supportive. It is about what I expected.

Having been on the receiving end of “why don’t you just kill yourself” suggestions myself, I don’t like to see it repeated by anyone, no matter the stature or situation. I was once told by a local eco-person that I should “study CO2 by locking myself in my garage with my SUV with the motor running”. While she couldn’t even get the chemical compound right, it was then that I chose not to reply in kind by wishing death on my opponents.

I simply think Rush could have chosen better words to voice the outrage, such as “if you really think this way, then you first, Mr. Revkin.” which would be humorous satire.

In Rush’s defense, doing live radio (or television) is tough when you ad lib everything. Eventually everyone who broadcasts this way will let loose a zinger for which they’ll take flak.

The only thing I can do is to stick to my principles. I try to keep the discourse civil here on WUWT. My dislike of the Limbaugh comment is a reflection of that. While I strongly disagree with Mr. Revkin on many, many, climate related issues, he has always been civil and respectful to me, and Rush probably does not have the first hand experience with him that I do in that regard.

Make of it what you will, but taking the high road in keeping discussions civil has been my choice and one that I do not regret.

Hopefully some good will come of the discussion. Let’s move on. There are more important issues. -Anthony

About these ads

341 thoughts on “Rush is off base with his ugly suggestion to Revkin

  1. Bad taste? Maybe. But so is the idea of some environmentalists that there are too many people on the planet. So who do we go after first? Name the group(s).

  2. Rush’s bad taste was to actually name some one and suggest that he be the first to follow his own advice (too many people? well you know what to do).

  3. I agree. We could use more professionalism today. Nothing positive is gained by such rhetoric and it can put all skeptics in a bad light. Revkin means well, I am sure, and seems always to be polite. He does not deserve this lambasting.

  4. Rush lives near the line. This time he stepped over it. He should apologize. If he does, the apology should be accepted.

  5. Maybe Rush should apologize after the complicit CO2-alarmist media apologizes for endlessly promoting a onesided, baseless agenda that has wasted astronomical amounts of time, effort and money.

  6. A little post hiccup… here it is again just in case:

    He got it wrong on the jihad and he got it wrong by telling Andy Revkin to kill himself. But again, in this bizzaro world, does 2 wrongs make it right?

  7. Well, Rush was a little crude and sank to the same level as a lot of the AGW’ers do, as reported here, but at the core of this diatribe is the basic question: If a person really believes over-population to be so critical what is that person doing about the problem? Helping solve it by getting themselves sterilized or following Al Gore’s example on C02 – producing way more than his share?
    Rush should apologize – not to Revkin- but to Rush’s followers for lowering his standards of response and reaction. He needs to remember the old saying, and I paraphrase, “In order to argue with fools you have to lower yourself to their level and they are a lot more experienced down there”

  8. I am a conservative, I do not listen to Rush, he talks at least 50% of the time about himself. Yes, he gets carried away at other times also.

  9. Well, Rush can be a bit out in left field sometimes (pun intended).

    I don’t know if Revkin ever said there are too many people, but if so, then I’m not sure an apology is necessary. Anyone who publicly takes a position that there are too many people certainly should not be surprised or offended if someone suggests they help solve the problem by being the first volunteer.

  10. I’ve listened to Rush since before the 1988 presidential election. The statement about Revkin is not over the line. When taken to the end game of Mr. Revkin’s absurdity Rush’s comment was a logical and pointed. The way to illustrate absurdity is often to posit an absurdity.

    No apology is necessary or required.

  11. This would not fly in Australia. He’d be off the air. But, no doubt, the right to freedom of speech in the US lends him a lot more tether. A shock jock in Australia has recently talked himself off the air with comments that were tasteless, but not as personally directed as Rush. Maybe Kyle Sandilands can get a job side-kicking for Rush?

  12. M. Simon (16:19:42) :
    Bad taste? Maybe. But so is the idea of some environmentalists that there are too many people on the planet. So who do we go after first? Name the group(s).

    I’m pretty sure the first group they have gone after were Unborn babies. Planned parenthood’s founder Margret Sanger’s primary motivation was population control

  13. Agreed. Very bad taste, ignorant and stupid. Turns the whole discussion in to a one dimensional slanging match.

    I happen to be a centre leaning, liberal atheistic skeptic. This is pretty reasonable in Australia. Not so much in the USA I gather, where the centre is the left, a liberal is a communist; and an atheist, well I can’t even begin to imagine what Rush and the rest might want to do or say about that.

    I am skeptical of emotional arguments. It is one of the reasons for my skepticism about global warming.

  14. The pertinent word here is “if”. “If” Revkin believes humanity is going to cause extinction, THEN logically,he should kill himself. Where does this necessitate an apology?

  15. Rush should drop the personal attacks and stick to the facts. Comments like his today hurt our cause by creating more rancor and bickering, which obscures the facts.

    There’s a good and relevant article in the New York Times Freakonomics blog today:

    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/are-solar-panels-really-black-and-what-does-that-have-to-do-with-the-climate-debate/

    A few excerpts:
    “One of the saddest things for me about climate science is how political it has become. Science works by having an open dialog that ultimately converges on the truth, for the common benefit of everyone. Most scientific fields enjoy this free flow of ideas.”

    “Political movements always have extremists — bitterly partisan true believers who attack anybody they feel threatens their movement. I’m sure you know the type, because his main talent is making himself heard. He doesn’t bother with making thoughtful arguments; instead, his technique is about shrill attacks in all directions, throwing a lot of issues up and hoping that one will stick or that the audience becomes confused by the chaos.”

    “That seems to be the case with Joe Romm, a blogger with strong views about global warming and what he calls “climate progress.” In a recent series of blog posts, Romm levels one baseless, bald charge after another.”

    “Romm’s method of attack is pretty simple. He takes as many statements as he can, interprets them — or misinterprets them in the worst possible way — and then subjects them to ridicule.”

  16. And how do you characterize trillions in taxes to support a outright hoax?

    Revkin was saying to basically kill people for a hoax. All Rush said was to lead by example.

    I say let’s kill the hoax and then employ some common sense to save people and raise their standards of living. Like in Africa, spray DDT and build coal fired power plants to supply electricity, the very essence of modern life.

    Since DDT was banned for a hoax, 40 million black children in Africa have died of Malaria. How is that the slightest bit humane when we know how to prevent it.

  17. Well whats that saying again, what goes around comes around. Sorry but with all the vile crap that’s been slung our way I think its almost far play.

    Am I sick of Guys like Revkin? Ya sick of the whole green movement.

    Its like a bowel movement no matter which end you pick it up from your going to get your hands dirty. They are the sick ones and to hell with trying to appease them.

  18. Remember that most “believers” honestly, sincerely and passionately believe that they are in the right. This is not a debate between the good guys vs. the bad guys. Rather, as I see it, it is a debate between those who want to believe in AGW because it fits in with their belief systems of community and conservation and those (myself included) who pride themselves most on logic, rational thought and consequently view emotion-driven causes with some skepticism.

    OK – Just a wordy way of agreeing that Limbaugh is a jerk.

  19. No apology necessary. The analogy seems appropriate. Environmentalists want others to be forced to comply with their vision of utopia. The average Joe is bombarded with a constant barrage of ” do this to save the planet”. Meanwhile the Cassandras in government and their cohorts in the MSM live the high life. At the bottom of it is an attempt at behavior modification, either by hook or by crook. Bravo Rush! Call it like it is. My view anyway. fm

  20. That’s right. Revkin is suggesting the denial of life to millions, if not billions of people, but he doesn’t cross any lines because he doesn’t name any of them. Not sure Rush needs to apologize on this one. Revkin is giving the advice, he declines to take it himself, and he implicitly acknowledges this by removing all context from the quote and then suggesting it might be a threat.

  21. Bad taste? When people carelessly speak of getting the world’s population down to 10 million?

    The bad taste is those who can bomb from 30,000 feet and feel innocent.

    Let everyone who advocates the death of others to “solve” a problem picture himself in the coffin and think a little harder.

    The problem is government backed banking cartels which leads to economic insanity. The earth might one day be overpopulated but it is not now. Let’s get a sane, free economic system and soon we won’t be planet bound anyway.

  22. (1) Rush stepped over the line. He should apologize.

    (2) The way I put it: I won’t even begin to believe we’re headed for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) until Al Gore lowers his “carbon footprint” to my level (merely affluent)–without those phony carbon “offsets”.

  23. I have said the same thing on this very blog although it was not directed at any one individual and was more on the line “why don’t you lead the way”.

  24. I don’t think Rush Limbaugh stepped over any line that you have drawn. These people truly believe that there are too many people in the world and that we need to reduce the population to save the planet. They are that bold and wacko in their beliefs. It justifies abortion, planned parenthood, and all the crazy AGW stuff. Read some of the quotes from Revkin and think about it.

  25. Anthony:

    I enjoy the site (and have for more than a year now) and this is my first (maybe last) comment. I don’t have the technical expertise in science to comment much. But I like having a contrasting view of the climate science. Perhaps Rush’s remarks were in poor taste, but but no worse taste than his opponents frequently exhibit. The most strident of the enviro/animal rights/vegan groups are so extreme that the options they propose are literally between misery and death. They are often posed in such a fashion that the only solution to the problem which they claim exists, is mass suicide of humans. The most extreme of them wish to create a world with a non-industrial “sustainable population” Such a sustainable population would require the death of billions. If you cap and trade industry out of existence, eliminate fossil fuels, refuse nukes, dump plastic, eat only grains, “free” all farm animals and pets (one of Obama’s czars allegedly believes animals have a right to human lawyers), stop logging, fishing ( “I don’t eat anything with eyeballs and an a@@@@@e” one of them said to me) and mining (labor issues and use of unapproved techniques to obtain disapproved minerals). Not to mention the thousand and one petty tyrannies. Will it soon be illegal to use a plastic bag of any kind, buy a six-pack with a plastic holder or eat non- “organic” produce? What is the predictable result? Well, the deaths of billions and the miserable lives of millions who know that a better, more comfortable life once existed. People who will be denied the attainment of that lifestyle because, by definition, a “sustainable population” has a drastically limited capacity to grow, less need to educate and actually, very little to do. All Rush really did was to put a name and a face on the issue. He should apologize only to the man named. If you are hypocritical enough to believe that your lifestyle (which violates most of these edicts) will survive intact during the upheaval, you are really outside the border of the discussion anyway. Thanks for letting me rant.

    REPLY: Welcome Jim. My position is simple, Revkin’s ideas (and many others that share similar ideas) are wrong. But it is also wrong to fall to the level of debate where we wish death on the other person publicly. No good can come from that, and it poisons any possibility of rational debate. I’ve always tried to take the high road, even when angered by such senseless and angry rhetoric we often see from our opponents. I encourage others to take the high road also.

    Thanks for your comments. – Anthony

  26. Fancy comparing environmentalists to terrorists, I’m shocked, surely no one could think they are trying to achieve their political goals by threatening the lives of children.

  27. Rush went over but I agree with tarpon (16:45:34) 40 mil is genocide-clean the environment by development, reduce the population by education….
    Norman Borlaug’s example comes to mind…

  28. Its true that many warmers hurl terrible invectives ( Hansen and the death trains, jail power co CEO,s; RFK Jr saying horrible things about skeptics, and RC idiots insulting anyone here or at CA) and that is precisely why skeptics should rise above these jerks and be more sane and actually be polite. The warmers are already alienating normal people with their rediculous claims-blaming everything on global warming. We should attack the science, with facts, and not attack people directly. Personal attacks are a sign of incompetence.

  29. Every time I see this, I lose my tolerance for civil discourse.

    These people do kill others and have no empathy.

    You are an honorable man Anthony. Something for
    the rest of us to aspire to.

    Best,
    Dave

  30. You left out this part:

    “Why do you want every one of us except you and your buddies on the left? See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they’re always for everybody else. You go and limit the number of kids you have. You go drive a Yugo. You go get rid of your big house. You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that. But I, Barack Obama, I’m going to throw big parties every night in the White House, I’m going to bring in Earth, Wind and Fire, I’m going to bring in Charlie Pride. This is happening. They’re having gigs at the White House. Drudge has a story, Earth, Wind and Fire, a bunch of people coming in they’re having big parties, Obama’s playing basketball. I saw a picture today Obama’s basketballs are logoed with his logo on them. I kid you not. Yes, they are. Yes, they are. I got a picture of that circle with the three red lines, the rip-off of the Pepsi logo, his basketballs are logoed.”

  31. Rush has nothing to apologize for – not until Keith Olbermann does. Or Al Gore. Or James “Death Trains” Hansen. Or any of the other econuts calling for Nuremberg trials for climate heretics.

    The difference between Hansen, Pachauri, Schmidt, Romm, et al. and el-Rushbo is that Rush is not an analyst. He is not a scientist. He doesn’t pretend to be one (he certainly doesn’t pretend to be a climatologist instead of, oh, for example, a railway engineer).

    Rush is a polemicist. This is his profession. He makes no bones about it. People do not listen to him for informed, considered, reasoned scientific discourse on the science (or lack thereof) behind the AGW thesis; that’s why they come to WUWT. People listen to Rush for entertainment.

    As for him being “way off base”, his suggestion is not at all outre. At a time when the extreme envirofringe consists of folks voluntarily sterilizing themselves to avoid producing any more dastardly carbon-emitters, all Rush is suggesting is that the true believers practice what they preach. If you truly think, despite all empirical evidence to the contrary, that human-produced carbon dioxide is killing the planet, then that’s your privilege. Logically, therefore, step #1 in solving the problem is to stop exhaling forthwith. Shortly thereafter, your personal contribution to the Gaia-slaughtering carbo-burden generated by we filthy, filthy primates will cease. Everybody wins.

    Well, except you, of course. And the plants. But why bring facts into a religious debate?

    Rush is simply pointing out the fundamental hypocrisy of the ecochondriacs: low-carbon lifestyles for everybody else, but not for them.

    When Algore converts his multi-million-dollar mansion to run on solar panels and unicorn flatulence, then he can have my light bulbs. Not before. In the meantime, I’ll visit WUWT for science, and I’ll listen to Rush for fun.

    And every now and then I’ll nod along with him, and mutter “Damn straight!” under my breath.

  32. Eh, perhaps we should just keep politics off the blog. The timing of this, I mean did you post this to “balance” the monckton post that riled up a few here for being extreme right wing rhetoric.

    That said, the comparison was not extreme, or even over the line. This is an excercise in using absurdity to force the recognition of really screwed up logic. It’s hard to make people pay attention to a logical process by illustrating it with a good intention. (( this principle is used in politics , maybe is even the heart of politics, to distract people from the logic of a concept with good intentions ))

    And that is what is done here, there is no logical difference between asking people to die for the planet, and asking people to die for a religion, if you are not willing to do so yourself. Indeed AGW is often compared here to religion here. I hope this is the last overtly politicaly focused article on the blog, i quite enjoy the other stuff. This just seems like a save face to the other political post this week.

  33. You greatly misunderstand Rush in this reaction to him.

    He quite often states that he tries to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. This is so very clearly an instance of that.

    It is not hard understand his statement this way, even if you don’t prefer it as a method.

  34. M. Simon says:

    Bad taste? Maybe. But so is the idea of some environmentalists that there are too many people on the planet. So who do we go after first? Name the group(s).

    Well, how about doing what Revkin was actually talking about and sponsor “programs offering family planning information and services to women seeking smaller families”?

    tarpon says:

    Since DDT was banned for a hoax, 40 million black children in Africa have died of Malaria. How is that the slightest bit humane when we know how to prevent it.

    DDT was never banned worldwide and the deaths due to malaria have much more to do with mosquitoes developing resistance to DDT and other pesticides due to their overuse in agriculture (which was something that Rachel Carson warned about) along with various other issues than they do to some non-existent ban (or even supposed pressure on some nations not to use DDT…which may have occurred in some cases). In fact, in India, deaths due to malaria skyrocketed in the 1970s even as DDT use there continued to increase (with the majority of it being used in agriculture). See http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/

    And, by the way, even the Malaria Foundation International, which worked successfully to prevent any “ban” (actually any phase-out with a definite date) of the use of DDT to fight against malaria in the Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants, talks about the problem of resistance and notes that having a chemical like DDT banned for all but disease control is probably a good thing: “The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations over two years ago. For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before.” ( http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html )

    That organization, unlike you, also does not say that the concerns about DDT are a hoax. In fact, they say: “It cannot be seriously disputed that DDT has devastated some wildlife populations, such as birds of prey.” ( http://www.malaria.org/DDT_open.html ) Nor do they claim that there are no health risks associated with DDT: “There is no doubt that there are health risks associated with DDT use. ” Rather, they argue that the benefits outweigh the risks when DDT is used as part of an indoor spraying program in places where it is needed and still effective for malarial control.

  35. Rush did go a little too far there (not that I haven’t thought the same thing, just didn’t say it), but I have to applaud him for standing up to the Enviro-[snip]. More high-profile people need to stand up to them. Unfortunately, there are people, both in power and not, who really would like to see many of us die off to “save the planet.” If Rush has to apologize, so do they.

  36. It would have been classier if he had quoted Dickens from A Christmas Carol, when the ghost of Christmas Present upbraids Scrooge for wanting to decrease the surplus population. The gist of it was in the eyes of God, the world could use less of you.

    I agree it doesn’t help to inflame things, but on the flipside maybe the press when they report Rush’s latest outrageous statement will let it slip to the general public that the environmentalist do want less of them.

  37. Two key things: the transcript of Rush is not necessarily what he said, or how he said it. The transcripts are provided by two guys named Zachary, for a George-Soros-funded web site, trying to catch Rush. They *have* distorted what he has said in the past – one distortion of Mark Steyn as a guest post led to a front page New York Times story that the NYT then had to retract because they believed the transcript instead of listening to the show/recording.

    But let’s assume that the transcript is correct. I think it is entirely logical that, if someone says that people are the problem, that we ask them to demonstrate the solution on themselves. This is the quickest (and most humorous) way to expose them as the anti-human elitists they are.

    By all means, Rush should discredit anyone who acts hypocritically. Is it any different from pointing out Al Gore’s (ot Tom Friedman’s) carbon footprint?

    No apology necessary for exposing climate hypocrisy.

  38. Anthony,
    Are you trying to suck up to the Obama administration with this blog entry? Whats the matter, are you affraid of being labled by the administration? Are you getting the message that dissent is harmfull to your livelyhood? You know its only a matter of time before the truth tellers are silenced, so you should get in line now and get it over with. No need to suck up now, Obama’s minions have already got your blog in their sights.

    REPLY: In response to what I do, I was once told by a local eco-person that I should “study CO2 by locking myself in my garage with my SUV with the motor running”. While she couldn’t even get the chemical compound right, it was then that I chose not to reply in kind by wishing death on my opponent. – Anthony

  39. This is Rush being Rush. But, yeah, the militant environmentalists should set the example, lead the way.

  40. Just because Olbermann et al. are complete idiots doesn’t mean Rush gets to do the same thing. While he often does lots of things for effect, this definitely crossed the line. And just because others have crossed it in the past doesn’t mean Rush should be let off the hook.
    .
    I might feel just a tad differently if Rush said it about Olbermann . . . but he didn’t. Revkin’s never done anything to deserve that type of comment.

  41. I think Revkin should apologize to Rush for taking his quote — of a sentence fragment, not even a complete sentence! — out of context, feeding it as raw meat to his liberal readers, and studiously failing to address the serious argument underlying Rush’s point.

    What Rush was doing is called “reductio ad absurdum”. He is taking the argument, advanced by Revkin, that humanity overpopulates the planet, and pushing it to one possible logical conclusion — which is that we should all kill ourselves to save the planet.

    Revkin refuses to engage the criticism. Instead he leaves out the crucial prefatory clause, “IF he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth” and just quotes the terminal rhetorical question, “why don’t you just go kill yourself?” Oh, sure, in the last paragraph he makes amends and gives the entire sentence, AFTER he has tried to shore up the argument that he is the thoughtful, studious one and Rush is just a boor.

    The point is that despite the breast-beating of the Left, no one is going to step up and be the first to voluntarily depopulate the planet by committing suicide, for the planet’s sake… with the possible exception of jihadists, of course, who are the demographic most closely associated with suicide (albeit only when they think they can take a few Jews with them). Instead of blushing at the suggestion of comparing Green Leftists with Green Jihadists, I suggest you take a step backward and see what Rush has accomplished by this very deliberate juxtaposition. It’s actually very clever, and achieves its goal of diminishing the halo surrounding the humanity-hating faction of the environmental movement by strapping them to our ideological enemies, the Islamic suicide bombers.

    BBB

  42. Sorry Mr. Watt, but this isn’t even a controversy. This is a simple technique of “if (you really think) then (you go first, or you do it, or you lead the way).” To win this battle, and it is a battle, you cannot insist on tying the hands, or tongues in this case, of the popular rhetoricians on your side.

    In the world in which Rush plies his trade, he is a master. His world is not science, but political commentary, and as many are happy to point out, “politics ain’t beanbag.” Revkin’s polite hypocrisy is still hypocrisy. It really is irrelevant if the policies he advocates are done in a soft, polite voice when those policies will result in disaster.

  43. Like Rush says, Illustrating the absurd by being absurd. That’s my take.

    Revkin and his ilk are always suggesting way out loony ideas. The problem is, they are serious, it always involves forcing taxpayers to foot the bill, and they are getting more shrill by the day.

    “And I have even proposed recently, I can’t remember if it’s in the blog, but just think about this: Should–probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children,” said Revkin.

    Go Mao!

  44. This is another great example of the left wing loons taking someone out of context. To understand the story please do the research, learn what he is talking about and what Revkin said. The denial of life to millions for carbon credits is nuts. I would think that this common sense blog would know better than this. Let’s see here, AGW is wrong because the facts state that it is a natural event and not man made but we should not have children for carbon credits. Hmmm.. I think there is a disconnect here.

  45. Revkin? Revkin?? Rush, you’re losing it. Apologize and go to your room. Revkin is not the problem. He’s positively rational compared to…ha-ha, you thought I was going to say…well, I’m not.

    Pay no attention to this unjustified attack, Andy. There are better things to look at. Like Keith Briffa’s lack of transparency, for one.

  46. Anthony,
    When you start suggesting that people kill themselves by carbon monoxide poisoning, I hope you realize that the natural reaction will be “you first”. Of course, you don’t go around suggesting that there are too many people.

  47. Rush is an entertainer much like Cramer and Kudlow on stocks. Notoriety is part of the carnival show. Step right up folks see the woman with three heads, in the next tent is the snake boy, he slithers, withers, and dithers. Never mind that he is president, just enjoy the show and listen to ELP KarnEvil.

  48. America is wonderful in that allows all points of view to be expressed, even those that are contradictory to its well being. Rush is one of those who gets off on exploiting those who seek easy answers to complex and emotional issues. He gets peoples attention by riling up their feelings and working them into a frenzy. This is the same as Fox News. By using their authority and influence they seek to gather support and listenership in portraying issues as threats. This is the same tactic used by many of the environmental extremists. The only way to get at the truth is to take out our emotions and look at things logically. Emotions cloud judgement and bias our feelings. If the science points to warming or cooling that is the answer, not what we wish it to be. I used to be an avid warmist till I realized that I had never looking into the science I was pushing on others. When I started looking into the studies and researching late into the night, I found that much of what I thought was solid proof was only speculation and extrapolation. I come to this blog multiple times a day to read what others have to say and research the issues in further detail. While I enjoy reading all of the comments, quite often I find that many readers seem to be way too emotionally involved and seem to suffer the same biases they detest in others. Emotions can be dangerous weapons and lead to more deaths than climate change ever could. I would like to thank Anthony for this Blog which helped me to find the answers to questions we should all be asking.

  49. You are too kind to environmentalists Anthony. They have been suggesting extreme forms of population control for years. Yes, if pushed, they will confess that they want to see large and rapid reductions in the global population, which can only be achieved by death.

    And they have gotten their wish in some nations by demonizing modern farming, genetically engineered crops, and all forms of energy production and industry. All of these steps have been designed to limit growth in living standards and life expectancy in the poorest of nations because, in their minds, if those nations become like America or Europe it will doom the Earth.

    As we have this nice little debate about Rush, they are drafting plans to limit life expectancy in the industrialized nations and squeeze us back to a poorer, shorter, more primitive existence. Make no mistake about it, capping energy is capping life expectancy, life quality, and population size.

    Why is it “crossing the line” for Rush to highlight their hypocrisy and suggest that they lead by example? I struggle to think of a single spokesperson for the religion, er, movement who doesn’t live life as large as possible with mansions, jets, “conferences” in exotic locations, all along with gross displays of both material consumption and energy use.

    Al Gore and Hansen can have my light bulbs and car when I see them living in tents, eating scraps of organic food and traveling by horse and buggy.

  50. Yep, this sort of commentary is not helpful. It is just that — ugly. Ugly and completely unnecessary.

    That said, Limbaugh’s call for Revkin’s death is far less ugly than the millions (mostly children) who have died in Africa since the banning of DDT pushed by environmentalists of Revkin’s stripe.

    Moreover, Limbaugh’s crass remarks are certainly no less ugly than the actions of Revkin’s peers who gave sustained and vigorous applause when Dr. Eric R. Pianka enthusiastically advocated the mass death of 90% of the human population and, in particular, championed the excruciating death from airborne Ebola because it is highly lethal and kills in days.

    Limbaugh’s remarks, while ugly, cannot compare with ugliness of death on a scale brought about by environmentalists and the death on a scale they enthusiastically anticipate and approve of. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler pale in comparison to the efforts and desires of environmentalists like Revkin, much less those of Mr. Limbaugh.

  51. On one hand we have irrefutable proof that Mankind is killing the Planet. On the other hand we have irrefutable proof that Mankind is not killing the Planet.
    My interpretation is that the Science is not settled however much the opinions have ossified.
    The saddest part of the story is, for me, how much otherwise reasonable people, have lost their reason.

  52. Anthony,

    The job you do, the purpose you serve, and that which you have accomplished with this web site is to be commended. But, to paraphrase a comment Lloyd Benson made to Dan Quale, “Mr. Watts, you’re no Rush Limbaugh.”

    The world that Limbaugh lives in is far from the realm of this web site. It is politics to a degree that you may not understand and may not choose to understand. It is a world of philosophical fundamentals that are not appropriate to this web site unless you choose to corrupt what you have achieved. To understand why an apology is not in order you would have to know that behind Ann Coulter’s statement regarding apologies. I would suggest there is a choice to be made: Either open this discussion to a far wider venue and purpose than it has been or keep with the science. That is certainly your right of choice, but it is also tantamount to opening a Pandora’s box unless you are willing, as Bruce Canton entitled one of his volumes, “Never call Retreat.”

    This is not a criticism – it is simply that to immerse this web site into politics is not appropriate. For clarification: I am conservative – extremely so. I am very much involved in politics. I have also had the very good fortune of 45 years as a participating physicist in interesting areas of research. I have found that politics and science do not mix. Philosophically they are are at odds. One seeks truth and the other avoids it.

    I wish you luck and good fortune with your choice.

  53. Jim,
    You said it all.

    Rush is just pushing the concept to the point of absurdity so everyone could see it. Rush is being HONEST, though personal, I admit. And some greenie teenyboppers ARE committing suicide, to eliminate their carbon footprint.

    Look at the UN’s Agenda 21.

    I don’t think Rush has anything to apologise for. It was an “If/Then” reality he was pointing out.

    Perhaps the political discussion doesn’t belong here. But I truly believe if we don’t dislodge this absurd global panic somehow, enviro terrorists will be culling populations at will.

    Nature takes care of excess populations. We are part of nature. I guess that should entitle us to kill off those we think are breeding too fast? Rush is just trying to point out a reality.

  54. Aside to Moderator — please edit out much less those of Mr. Limbaugh in my previous submission. It does not fit and confuses what I am trying to say.

    REPLY: Too confusing – deleted – resubmit

  55. “While she couldn’t even get the chemical compound right, it was then that I chose not to reply in kind by wishing death on my opponent.”

    Rush wasn’t wishing death on his opponent, and if you think he was you don’t know him. He was illustrating his opponent’s hypocrisy.

    Unlike Hansen or Gore who couldn’t care less if your life were cut short as a result of carbon cap and trade.

    Don’t ever kid yourself about who would really wish death upon their opponents given the chance.

  56. We are talking about Rush because he has fire in his belly, and he told the guy what he thought of his ideas and the horse they are mounted on.
    The message was “Practice what you preach”.
    He’s oft rude, he’s sometimes crude, but if you pick a fight with the right, you’ll get it.
    The WH and others have been picking a fight , and don’t think Rush is going to let it slide.
    “tis the world we inhabit.

  57. One way to measure how effective you are at getting your message out is to monitor the responses of your opponents–especially the level of vituperation they direct towards you. Using this measure, Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are two of the most effective “AGW is unproven” messengers; and Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism. Since I believe socialism is as deadly an enemy to this country as exists today, at this point in time I’ll not only tolerate, I”ll applaud any legal action that fights that evil. Since I also believe the socialist movement has adopted AGW as a means to its ends, IMO Rush has nothing to apologize for–in fact, his position should be applauded.

  58. Rush Limbaugh is a CFR indoctrinated divide and conker control agent, just as virtually everyone in main stream media is a member of the same CFR club pushing the same NWO agenda, the only difference is, some do it in different ways than others. You must treat what you here coming out of their mouths in the same way you treat comments in the blogospher, with a modicum of skepticism until further analysis. The nice thing about the blogosphere is you get to challenge the comments in real time, the MSM you don’t get to challenge at all. I prefer living in the BSM. (Blog Stream Media)

  59. I am totally behind you Andy – keep the high moral ground, and the moderate, rational people will see you as the voice of reason.

    If we all drop to the level of the AGW and Rush types then it pays to remember the old addage:

    “Never argue with an idiot… they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

  60. I’m a liberal conservative (or a conservative liberal).

    I don’t think a Science site should get into the fray regarding “verbiage” used by “shock jocks” on their “opinion/entertainment shows”. One can comment on their science, but not verbiage.

    Why? Well, “shocking verbiage” is what “shock jocks” are all about. Might as well try to empty the ocean with a bucket as ask them to stop. But, by asking only one (of many) to stop, one appears to be condemning the message of the one criticized. Better to critique the Science or say nothing, I think. FWIW.

    BTW, I hate some of the verbiage I hear. Sometimes I literally cringe. But, I try to understand the message — rather than the form in which it is delivered.

  61. Re: Anthony’s reply to JT

    Your reply to JT might help me better make the point of my earlier comment.

    I think it’s reasonable to conclude Rush was not literally wishing death upon his opponent if he really was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. In missing this I believe you misunderstand him. This statement of his is unlike the experience of yours to which you compare it.

  62. PS> Was there a thread on the Levitt & Dubner book that I missed? I thought that one was more worthy of debate than the Rush comment. At least they are approaching the CC debate from a rational economic perspective. The outrage at their chapter on CC has been comical to say the least. I posted on Climate Progress but needless to say that was moderated into the bit bucket.

  63. Sorry, I’m not too familiar with the target of Rush’s remarks. Any quotes out there where he suggests the population should be reduced to fix AGW? If so, Rush is on target and shouldn’t apologize to anyone for anything.
    Having said that, one mustn’t try to justify bad behavior by pointing at other bad, even worse, behavior. Still, I have seen quotes of Hansen, et al that are hateful, ignorant raving, plain and simple. And He is supposed to be the adult in all this. Why not an apology from Him?

  64. At one time, there was a concept of loyal opposition. It was accompanied by genteel behavior as those involved realized that (1) their opponents shared the same core values; and (2) the alternative was worse.

    In his Science Fiction Story, “Podkayne of Mars,” Robert Heinlein wrote, “Politics is just a name for the way get things done … without fighting. We dicker and compromise and everybody thinks he has received a raw deal, but somehow after a tedious amount of talk we come up with some jury-rigged way to do it without getting anybody’s head bashed in. That’s politics. The only other way to settle a dispute is by bashing a few heads in … and that is what happens when one or both sides is no longer willing to dicker. That’s why I say politics is good even when it is bad … because the only alternative is force—and somebody gets hurt.”

    Resorting to ad hominem attacks, lying, fraud, etc., is at best counter-productive and at worst, the opening salvo in head bashing.

    What I find scary is that the MSM has encouraged a significant portion of the population to think solely with their emotions.

  65. “… and Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism.” Reed

    Sorry. Until Rush takes on the government backed banking cartel how can he claim to be against socialism? It does not compute. Socialism came to the US AFTER the banking cartel ruined the economy in the 1920’s to 1930’s.

  66. Rush is right. We need to learn from the left who acts like pack of pit bulls if you say anything that they agree with. They want to force every one to follow there path way to personal poverty and sadness. Its is time to fight back. Or we will be all be slaves to the state.

  67. If you don’t listen regularly to Limbaugh, then you are way out of line for criticizing him; i.e., you are shooting from the hip — just like the drive-by news media. Limbaugh is one of the few outspoken critics of AGW and Cap & Trade in the media, and he has circa 20 million regular listeners. He regularly consults Roy Spencer at Alabama! His program is the most informative news critique in the country. Many of his comments and discussions are cloaked in sarcasm, and if you are not a regular listener, you could easily misunderstand his intent.
    Apologize???? You must be kidding! Have you heard any apologies from the left-wingers for FABRICATING the racist comments attributed to Limbaugh during the recent NFL purchase negotiations????
    The New York Times is a leftist newspaper, and Limbaugh regularly features the disgusting media coverage and bias that surface in it. The only way the New York Times would find its way into my home would be if I ran out of toilet paper.

  68. I have frequently suggested to people who insist that CO2 is a pollutant that they should refrain from exhaling.

    Rush’s mistake (assuming quotation is accurate) is in naming AR who is by no means the archtypical fanatical warmenist.

    There are other names he could have used and no apology would have been required.

    Unless it can be demonstrated that AR has used equally inflammatory language, Rush should apologize.

  69. PEOPLE WILL DIE!

    Billions will die from climate change if we don’t make every living soul on earth suffer like a poor Armenian?
    Therefore we need to kill as many as possible beforehand by any means necessary? Why, so they don’t cause the death of others? What’s the point of worrying about it?

    EVERYONE DIES! MILLIONS ARE DYING RIGHT NOW! Life entails suffering and dying, always has, always will. Even the rich and comfortable suffer.

    Rush is just being realistic, trying to knock some sense into the insensate 20 somethings.

    If a sudden catastrophe arises that kills billions of people, massive tsunami, Yellowstone wipes out the US, major asteroid hit, nuclear war, we were all destined to die soon anyway. If a few survive, more power to them. If no humans survive who are you going to sue?

  70. I agree. He is way out of line. Had to look up who Andy Revkin was.

    Just a greenie who means well and believes in AGW. There are plenty of those around. We dont (or shouldnt) tell them to kill themselves.

    I think this Rush Limbaugh bloke is off his rocker as are a few warmies.

  71. I like Rush, I think he’s saying that if you want to be the Ultimate environmentalist then take your own life that way you get rid of your carbon footprint and you can’t destroy the earth anymore.

  72. I do not think that Rush stretched the bounds of good taste. Anymore than that fellow that tries to scare everybody telling us there may only be “one breeding pair” of humans living in Antarctica in a century.

    I for one am TOTALLY SICK of a very small portion of our population continuing to SCREAM about how all the rest of us are KILLING the planet. When someone suggests that there are too many other humans around that seems like the biggest argument against, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” that I have ever heard of.

    If they really had any good basis for this nonsense most of the rest of us responsible humans would do what we could to prevent the problem. However they long ago DESTROYED any credibility they claim to have regarding their ability to predict the future. As they continue their SHOUTING, we increase our belief that they are full of something.

    They declared this war on those who don’t believe as they do. Sure reminds me of another group that “piloted” some planes to other than their intended destinations back in ’01 because they didn’t agree with the way we live.

    I sometimes think the best outcome would be an EMP bomb that destroyed our ability to “model” the climate with computers. Then the “Climate Scientists” would have to use an Ouija board. At least then the general population would figure out they are being scammed.

  73. Well I have exchanged views with Andy Revkin a number of times; and he has always been quite polite; to the point that I ask myself how someone that polite can be so wrong or perhaps so ignorant.

    And I am not going to take the time to try and figure Andy out; he is what he is.

    But I don’t think what Limbaugh said was appropriate; although I agree with his general position that those who think we have too much population (and in the DEVELOPED countries), should lead the way to reduction themselves.

    I do have one quite serious reservation about the approach Limbaugh took.

    It is quite well known, that Rush Limbaugh gets his basic training in climate science; well the technical issues surrounding the question from Dr Roy Spencer for one and maybe Patrick Michaels as well; and that I think is a good thing.

    I believe Rush slings some stray mud in the direction of Roy and Patrick; that they do not deserve; when he overreacts like this; because neither of those two chapos is that way inclined.

    So I do feel that Rush need to issue at least a retraction.

    But notice that Dr James Hansen and AlGore have often expressed radical views that are not significantly different in impact from what Rush just said.

    But the science should take the high road, and not the dirt road of politics.

    So at least retract Rush for the sake of Dr Roy and your other science advisors; they conduct themselves as gentlemen; as does Andrew Revkin, even though he doesn’t seem to be able to connect rational thoughts to arrive at what are obvious conclusions. We can at least have debate with Andy.

  74. Limbaugh’s remarks must be placed in the context of pointing out the failure of the environmentalists to take their own prescriptions for climate change . They demand others ride bicycles while they fly in jets. They demand others buy a hybrid while they ride in SUVs.

    Limbaugh’s shtick is hyperbolic parody and satire. This was the context in which Limbaugh’s suggestion was given.

    To assert that Limbaugh was actually recommended suicide for Revkin is therefore inaccurate, and an apology unnecessary.

  75. Unfortunately I think threads like this will degenrate into slanging matches that will drag this site down to the level of CP and RC… often I have seen more rational debates warned for straying from the science, but somehow Rush’s off-the-hip remark is worthy of intense analysis? I don’t think you are doing this site any favours with this one Andy, and there is only one direction this thread is going to go IMHO.

  76. In his book “The secret india” T.Brunton, writes he asked his Guru: How can I improve the world?, the sage answer was:
    If you begin with yourself and change, you would have began to change the world”
    This is, I think, is the meaning of what Rush Limbaugh said.

  77. I dont know about Revkin but many greenies have the attitude that humanity is destroying the planet, and we are evil. They fail to recognise that the average bloke is a decent chap and we are part of nature and the eco-system. These guys would be happy if there was wide spread destruction and death.

    But just because their thinking is warped, there is no reason ours should be too.

  78. Back2Bat (17:51:42)

    You took what I said out of context. I didn’t say Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism. I said “Using this measure [i.e., the degree of vituperation leveled at someone by his/her opponents] … Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism“. My question to you is twofold: First, do you think Rush is a liberal, conservative, or neither? Second, who receives more vituperative comments from the left than Rush?

  79. David L Morris (16:38:48) :
    Agreed. Very bad taste, ignorant and stupid. Turns the whole discussion in to a one dimensional slanging match.
    I happen to be a centre leaning, liberal atheistic skeptic. This is pretty reasonable in Australia. Not so much in the USA I gather, where the centre is the left, a liberal is a communist; and an atheist, well I can’t even begin to imagine what Rush and the rest might want to do or say about that.
    I am skeptical of emotional arguments. It is one of the reasons for my skepticism about global warming.

    ————————————
    Hi David – you aren’t alone.
    Substitute “Britain” for “Australia” and you’ve pretty much described my position.
    It depresses me that many people who I would otherwise agree with politically have swallowed the AGW scam whole and so many people on the anti-AGW side hold views which make me cringe. Both political extremes have largely taken their positions on this issue as a kneejerk reaction. It happens that those who are on the right who adopted an unthinking position happened to be, in my estimation of the evidence, correct – but it’s more by accident than design.
    Those on the political right who rant about marxists when what they mean is “vaguely-liberal” do the anti-AGW cause – especially outside the US – no favours at all. Most of the people, certainly in Europe, who need to be convinced that the science is flawed will just look at the Rush Limbaugh types and think that we are all like him. It makes the job of the warmists so much easier to dismiss our arguments when all they have to do is point at Fox News (viewed with a mixture of amusement and horror in the rest of the world) to convince any sane person that our arguments are purely political and have no merit.

    Let’s stick to the science – that’s the weak point. Anything else gives the undecided a reason to ignore us.

  80. Bulldust: What I find great about WUWT is the low level of ad hominum and personal attacks (and censorship) which one finds at RC and left-wing sites. Even the present thread has not degenerated despite the opposing opinions. I think that is due to the superior level of intelligence and maturity of WUWT participants…..

  81. The efforts of the “green” movement in its various historical and current manifestations have directly resulted in the death of innocent people. Rhetorically asking one of them to sacrifice themselves instead of sacrificing the unwilling is in bad taste but not unwarranted, IMO.

  82. I’m a libertarian and believe in the moral imperative of free speech. Demanding apologies constitutes a “humanitarian” threat to free thought (see: Jonathan Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought).

    Don’t like what Rush says? Ignore him.

    And rise above the cacophony by avoiding ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

  83. Rush is simply exposing the hypocrisy within the AGW movement, especially leadership, he’s not actually proposing that Mr. Revkin go off and die. It’s pure sarcasm, hyperbolized, but sarcasm still.

    The problem with people like Revkin, Gore, et al. is they seem to know what’s good for the rest of us but the rules never apply to them. It’s kind of like Gore smogging up the airways and powering up his castle in Nashville while telling us we need to cut back or we’re going to destroy the planet. The point is, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!”

    Mr. Revkin should apologize to the population for suggesting that we reduce ourselves. What exactly does he mean by reduce?

    He begins by saying, “if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate . . .

  84. Subjects the MSM are forbidden to talk about.

    [SNIP. Sorry. More than half of those are "forbidden" here, too. We try to provide as much latitude as we can, but we do have to keep things on the rails. There are plenty of other blogs for all that. ~ Evan]

    I could go on, the list is very long

  85. Rush who? People like him sideline themselves if you just let him rant while we are occupied with more serious and worthwhile debate.

  86. Actually, I agree with Rush Limbaugh about these people who propose to limit the number of humans through government regulations (I dunno who Revkin is exactly, so I will not say him specifically). Controlling our numbers. If it is that important to limit our numbers, start with the believers. If you think humans are evil, and you are human, and evil must be eradicated, then start with yourself and go away. Stop eating, stop drinking, stop heating/cooling your home, stop going to the store and just go away. People like Al Gore who consumes 20 times or more energy in one year than I do for just one of his many homes telling me I have to conserve is unconscionable. Set an example, cut your energy use to 1/2 that of mine, and then show me that it is a viable alternative to my current lifestyle. Until then, you are in no position to rell me how much energy I should be allowed to consume.

  87. The gloves have to come off. This is a battle for survival. When they hit you, you hit back twice as hard.

  88. “You took what I said out of context. I didn’t say Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism.” Reed Corway

    Sorry Reed, mea Culpa. In answer to your question Rush is a conservative. But conservatives merely wish to conserve the past which is supposed to have been a better time. But our present problems come from past mistakes.

    I see the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 as the chief cause of our problems. I would abolish it, not conserve it. What would a conservative want? Hence, Rush is no ally of mine. I have more in common with Pam, for instance.

    I am a Ron Paul Libertarian.

  89. Anthony

    OH BS – I strongly disagree with your post.

    What is going on here? Nobody can understand the context of Limbaugh’s monologue without the full story, and you haven’t provided it. Perhaps you aren’t aware of the entire story, or if you are, didn’t follow the point he was making.

    His discussion started with the fact that the Al Gores, Andrew Revkins, and other (Hollywood) AGW elitest of the world are telling us how we should live our lives, but they have no intention of following their own advice. They are complete hypocrites. Other people should make all the sacrifices.

    Skip over the crap about jihadists who push people to be suicide bombers, and their unwillness to be the one wearing the vest.

    Limbaugh lead into all this by discussing Revkin’s recent article about issueing carbon credits to motivate families not to have children. Here is the big question and the point that Limbaugh was making:Why are OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN the ones who have no business existing on our planet (and causing global warming)?

    Rush never suggested that Revkin should kill himself – Rush was saying IF Revkin actually believes that we need to do something about too many people on the planet (causing global warming), then why shouldn’t Revkin be first in line, instead of other people’s offspring.

    Rush’s invitation to Revkin was based on two assumptions (made by Revkin): 1) Global warming is real and catastrophic 2) Too many people is the problem.
    It is important to note that Rush does not accept either premise and therefore does not believe that Revkin kill himself.

    I don’t have any problem at all with Limbaugh saying to Revkin; if you really avocate population control, why not start at your house instead of someone else’s. No apology is needed – It’s a valid point.

  90. jack mosevich (18:18:49) :
    I hear ya – which is why I like spending time here. While my background is in extractive metallurgy and mineral economics, I have gained enormous insight (hopefully most of my intuition is accurate) on the CC caper.

    I have had posts moderated to the bit bucket on both Climate Progress and Real Climate. They only allow like-minded comments or comments that are so obviously wrong that even they can refute them (I suspect many of these are posted by the site supporters under pseudonyms to bolster their case – but then I am naturally cycnical/sceptical by nature … some would call it realist).

    David L Morris (16:38:48) :
    Add me to the list if you like. I am basically centrist, swing-voting, agnostic by nature. Ironically, despite being white, male and anglo (I have papers to prove this – the South African government once gave me a paper classifying me as a white person… must get that framed one day) – I was once funded by the Australian Government as a minority (I never saw the funds, of course, they went into the school coffers I was working for).

    Given the latter, I have a strong sceptical view on most government prohrams. For the record I was funded as a minority because I came from a non-English speaking background (for which one parent had to have a non-English first language – in my case Dutch). Aussie tax dollars well spent no doubt… I do get a kick out of telling people I am a minority, however… it gets the odd laugh here and there.

  91. You’re an honorable man, Anthony. I admire your principles. Far too many care far too little about civility anymore. However, I am not unsympathetic to Rush. I agree with his argument. I just wish he had made his point with a little less venom.

  92. Anthony,

    I invite you to go to the following and give close attention to the content. Perhaps you will understand – perhaps you will not – the world of Rush Limbaugh – and unfortunately, ours to be.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen

    It isn’t necessary this comment appear. But you need to read. Perhaps then you will understand the greater current against which your battle with weather station is fought.

    If you are liberal in your thinking I am certain this will only fuel your ‘concern’ for what Limbaugh said. My dear fellow, you walk among times and people for which there is abundant history not to be admired.

  93. The Right has decided to make this a fighting issue.
    Don’t think for a second that they don’t know any of the science behind climate, or are somehow science dumb. They are not.
    One of thier top beliefs is the Right to Life, and what the Left has been pronouncing is a direct threat to that.
    The Right will pay just enough attention to the science debate to assure thier aim at the core values of the Left, which they detest.
    Cover your ears if you are squeamish.

  94. Anthony,

    You say you don’t want to lower the debate to the point where we are promoting our agenda with the suggestion that people die. However, let’s take into account the number of people who have died from a DDT ban. Let’s also take into account the number of people who would starve to death were we to go all organic farming. Let’s also take into account the number of people who will currently starve to death due to the pressure to use “renewable resources” in just about every product you can imagine.

    Of course, I don’t want anyone to die and that’s my point. This “dumb” environmentalism will kill people. Period. It will if our simple-minded politicians continue this line of thinking.

    Now, I don’t give Rush the credit of actually understanding these issues in depth like many of us do, but I think one could argue that Rush was using satire. It would take the form as such: “Well, you all want to institute all of these changes that will kill millions of people, but if consumption is the problem and you are so passionate about it, then why don’t you just go ahead and kill yourself?!”

    Obviously I don’t personally agree with this in the literal sense, but I can understand it as a satirical take on the truly serious and deadly consequences many of these ill-founded and impractical “environmental” policies will have.

  95. I don’t think there is anything surprising about a radio personality suggesting that “x should just kill themselves.” They all do it now. It’s their favorite way to get coverage in media other than radio.

  96. I would suggest you print the two paragraphs following his suggestion, so as not to take his words out of context. You might find them instructive.

    I was listening to the show above, and Rush need not apologize.

  97. I think that this site has gone totally PC. I can guess why but I don’t want to make any accusations. If this site can’t see Revkin for what he is….well then what can one believe about the information disseminated on this site? Science is normally a search for truth, but since it has been politicized by the left; ignoring their goals just makes us skeptics look stupid. Touche!

  98. The trillions of dollars wasted on AGW already could have saved millions of lives already. That money could have built wells, treated water, and all the other good stuff.

    Words are only the start of the wave of anger that people have festered up…… next we just might have some civil disobedience. (sound similar)

    And who knows… maybe even a GENERAL STRIKE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKgsoVYrojk

  99. It cannot be said too often or too strongly:

    Liberalism is the political philosophy of enslavement. In the end, there will be one set of rules for the “elites”, and a completely different set of rules for us “plebeians”.

    Leadership the the ability to get others to follow you on the strength of your character, and example. No true leader ever asks an underling to do anything that s/he is not willing to first do her/himself.

    Sorry to repeat what others have said before on this thread; had to throw my two cents in.

    Mr. Revkin should apologize for having bought so completely into the greatest hoax in history.

    Mark H.

  100. I have thought it, Rush said it out loud, who is the worse person?

    I am sorry Anthony but I cannot condemn anyone for saying something I actually agree with, no matter how tasteless others feel it is.

    I understand if it crosses some moral line with you but that is what personal freedom is the ability to decide for yourself what is right and wrong. Did we not just do the Ayn Rand thing here?

    I feel anti-human over-population beliefs are personally offensive and based on really poor understanding of the planet and of our species but I would never ask anyone to apologize for wanting me and 6 Billion of my closest friends dead, mock them and ridicule them sure, but not demand an apology.

    Nothing but a difference of opinion, it is what makes the world go round… all wobbly like it does.

  101. Revkin suggested a program where the government incented people not to have kids. While the enforcement of this would be problematic if not outright evil, it is not a bad thought exercise. If you believe global warming is the greatest problem facing the world today – what is the most effective way to stop it? Limiting population growth by incentive is one alternative. Every method that a government used to limit population growth that I know of descended into immense cruelty and worse(as far as I know). However, an AGWer should list it so he or she can eliminate it as an option. I assume this is what Revkin meant when he called it a thought exercise.

  102. Anthony – I love your work on surface stations and so many other technical issues, BUT you are far off-base here regarding Rush.
    Limbaugh did not advocate Revkin’s death, but merely suggested that if Andy R is true to his stated beliefs about human impact on the environment, that he (Revkin) should take the first, most obvious step toward his (Revkin’s) solution.
    Yes, Rush illustrates the absurd by taking it to its absurd conclusion. He is the Thomas Paine of our generation (recall “A Modest Proposal”).
    Limbaugh’s primary strength is insightful political commentary and he has a remarkable record of forecasting political events/trends in the U.S.
    His summaries and interpretations of science issues, particularly climate/environment matters, have been similarly on-target, well informed, and far ahead of the State-controlled media for more than a decade.
    Rush embodies common sense, which is why he appeals to so many across the country and around the world.
    Andy Revkin will probably recognize (soon) that the whole man-made global warming thing is a huge hoax/lemming-leap and will distance himself from the alarmist nut-jobs.
    Or he will stick with the Ohmygawd-modelers and go down with the rest of the New York Times. His choice, just like taking his next (CO2-generating) breath.

    Reply: A Modest Proposal was penned by Jonathan Swift ~ charles the moderator

  103. When all the left wing environmental radicals apologize for their loony frickin’ attitudes and attacks, that will be the time for Rush to become reasonable.

    In the meantime, throwing Molitav cocktails at them is OK in my opinion.

    I exchanged emails with Revkin a year ago and he is NOT logical, he plays to his audience.

  104. Pamela Gray (18:41:37) :
    Rush who? People like him sideline themselves if you just let him rant while we are occupied with more serious and worthwhile debate.

    Pamela: I enjoy your post’s when you speak about things that you know about. I will bet dollars to donuts that you have never listened to a few hours of his show. I no longer listen to him but have in the past and he has never said anything as outrageous as things like global warming is killing 300,000 people or that islands are sinking and polar bears dying because of global warming. Perspective….that is what life is about. Truth is what it is.

  105. Hasn’t it long been part of the stated, though not advertised, goals of greenpeace to rapidly reduce human population by more than 90% ? I have always wondered why people who think there are to many people always think it is other people who are the problem.

  106. I expect most of those who think Rush went “over the top” never, or rarely, listen to him. He is a consummate broadcaster, and the best extemporaneous political analyst I have ever heard. He has his limitations, especially where science is concerned, though his early realization that ‘global warming’ was hogwash was in my view correct. Rush is particularly good at getting right to the heart of an issue, “by making the complex understandable,” and that’s exactly what he did here.

    The issue isn’t Revkin, who was reporting (apparently approvingly) on a panel he was on that discussed removing the plague of humanity that the extreme enviros believe infects the Earth. Rush went right back to Paul Ehrlich’s infamous The Population Bomb, and Ehrlich’s radical partner John Holdren, who advocated forced sterilization and poisoning the drinking water with contraceptive drugs, now ensconced in the White House at the ear of an American President.

    These people, said Rush (I heard that portion of the show), are not just foolish; they are dangerous, and in that respect not so different from the radical Islamists, who happily sacrifice other people’s children to the cause they zealously advocate. You never find the Islamist leaders strapping bombs onto themselves; and you’ll never find the radical enviros giving up their lavish lifestyles for the cause, either. You want to kill off most of humanity to “save the planet”? How about you (Revkin, and by extension, Holdren and the rest), first?

    Sounds reasonable to me. Rush predicts that you’ll see Chinese-style “one child” policies enacted into law within a few years, if these people aren’t stopped, and he’ll be right if we don’t step up and throw these crazy ideas right back in their faces. This isn’t about the science of climatology; it’s about a radical ideology that poses a dire threat to free society and humanity as a whole.

    Sorry Anthony, to disagree, but in this case I think it’s your reaction that’s “over the top.” If you haven’t yet, I suggest you listen to the transcript of Rush’s show today, and reconsider. Maybe you owe him an apology.

    /Mr Lynn

  107. FWIW, I still agree with Anthony. And I do understand Rush’s “demonstrating absurdity” routine very well, and I make allowances for that. But I think he clipped the curb a bit here.

    And let’s not forget that Anthony has been something of a target himself for two years now, so he can see it from both sides.

  108. Rush tends to use the absurd to illustrate the absurd. That said; the comment is in poor taste and I cannot defend Rush’s tact in this case.

    I work a board where we handle up to 10,000 political posts per day. I sense an increasingly uncomfortable, contentious, angry, atmosphere in regards to many topics. I do my best to keep some focus on Climate Change / AGW / Cap & Tax , etc. The ‘science’ end of discussion tends to be less volatile than the political areas. Political discussions oft detract from the facts of science, the necessary focus. The path to defeating foolish legislation.

    I must admit that sometimes I get edgy, at times rain on my own parade. But never, never, as stormy as Rush’s comment. It would help a lot for stage center celebrities like Rush to keep the presentation environment at low-pressure. We don’t need a tri-cyclonic distraction complete with clowns and elephant dung. We don’t need to hand the other side the key ingredients for a perfect storm with which they can sink the effective armada we currently have working against Cap & Tax, etc.

    Hopefully Rush will make an appropriate apology and work to move forward with us.

  109. You miss the point, Man up. What a bunch of whiny panzies.

    These environmental whacko’s are telling the rest of humanity to stop breathing since we are poluting the environment with our CO2 exhaled from our natural bodies.

    Let them kill themselves and save the planet, but, don’t tell me to stop breathing and thus kill myself.

  110. Anthony: Was I just a precursor this past weekend to the wrath you are now getting? “We” are not the bad guys. “We” just don’t want to see our country go down base upon fraudulent goals.

  111. “Second, who receives more vituperative comments from the left than Rush?”

    That’s easy, Sarah Palin

  112. I thought Rush’s comparison with indoctrinating suicide bombers was valid. Although, he doesn’t fully articulate the comparison.

    AGW indoctrination and PC suppression of any dissenting AGW views is rampant in the educational system.

    A whole generation is being taught that AGW alarmism is the complete and absolute truth, and is the only path to ecological salvation.

  113. Anthony, you have deleted your own headlines before, I think one got into abiotic oil and barycentrism, you deleted the whole thing. We all saw it.
    It reminds me of some gratuitous negative comment Geraldo made about Sarah Palin on Fox recently, I swore I’d never watch him again. I even wrote an email and told him so.
    Let’s stick with the science.
    The comments have been edifying. :)

  114. Maybe OT, but people, the LEFT and the RIGHT are two faces of of the same coin. They pretend there are serious disagreements between them, but deep down they work under the same agenda with one ultimate goal: One-World governance.

  115. A more meaningful way of making the point is to ask the radical environmentalist: “If that’s what you believe, then how do you justify your continued existence?” That forces them to confront the logical extension of their arguments. Not that they’re willing to face it honestly, but it’s less hostile than suggesting someone should kill himself.

    REPLY: Well said, let’s all just tuck that retort away for a rainy day. – Anthony

  116. It is really funny how many people who obviously never listen to rush, have these strong opinions of him, apparently fed to them by other people they trust who have obviously deceeved them.

  117. Hold on. Here’s what Rivkin actually said at Wilson per the IBD, and is quoted as part of Limbaugh’s on air comments per his transcript, prompting his remarks:

    “””
    He went on to say that “probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children.”

    “More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions,” Rivkin has blogged, wondering “whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation.”
    “””

    This differs slightly from the rehash post on Rifkin’s blog so who knows. But given Al Gore jetting from mansion to mansion the President jetting to Olympic press conferences, if the above is accurate – guilt dumping on US families – then Rivkin earned some Limbaugh bombast, even if Limbaugh went out of bounds here.

  118. He has achieved his aim,people are discussing the issue,he uses their tactics against them,and they don’t like it.I did not read what he said as wishing death on Revkin,he asked him to put his money where his mouth is.I have read Revkin’s columns and the answers posted,he is not too fussy about what he allows people to say on his blog.He does allow opposing views though.

  119. Once a friend congratulated my wife and I on the news that we were expecting our second child. The next morning he and I went out for coffee. Then he saw big block letters in the newspaper: WORLD POPULATION 6 BILLION
    He sniped, “That’s terrible we’re ruining the planet.”
    “Well I guess you should take it back?” I asked.
    Puzzled, “I’m not following.”
    I explained, “Yesterday you toasted to the announcement that my wife is pregnant. Which means we’re part of the problem …”
    “Oh … you’re right. I didn’t mean it like that” he said.
    I ended it with, “It’d be nice if we could have it both ways.”

    I’m not Rush’s keeper. But, how about a citation? For crying out loud we’re not running political commercials with cut and past quotes. How was it set up? What was said before and after? How was it said, tongue in cheek?
    Here’s a link to Rush’s site from todays show commenting on Mr, Revkin: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125112.guest.html

  120. Maybe bad taste, but not more so than that which comes from the left aisle. They have been claiming for years that we are overpopulated and there needs to be population control. They have even pushed abortion and mandatory abortion to control populations and even certain segments of the population.

    If these leftists think that humans are an evil on this planet, then the only solution is to get rid of humans, right? I recall some even saying that the Earth would be better off without humans on it.

    So, Rush is just taking his argument to the next level. If they want us to do something, then let he who casts the first stone….. cast it at himself.

  121. Ummm… in context of the rant I do not believe this warrants an apology.

    What is he supposed to say as a n apology? “Never mind, don’t take your own advice and off yourself, continue to be a blight on the world.” Now that is I do believe taking a little to far at his own words. I believe Revkin is calling for people to be more responsible so that we can avert horrible things from happening to the planet as he sees it.

    But here is the thing, Rush is talking about things from HIS point of view, He sees Revkin as saying these things and is drawing a logical ( though in my opinion it is non-sequitur) conclusion.

    I am interested in truth, and hearing things like what Rush said strike me as simply a logical fallacy that he created for himself. He has to deal with that, not us. I am more interested in getting the hundred senators and hundreds of congress men and women to understand that they have been given faulty data with a political agenda. I am more worried about the people who I cannot get a hold of and even if I did would not listen to me.

    I am more worried about people who have a much more closed mind to truth then Rush. Since at the moment they are running this country, not Rush.

  122. My opinion of what I read above is that Limbaugh was saying that the environmentalists, as a group, are blaming humans for all of the world’s problems (both real and imagined problems). And they are always demanding that everyone else make the sacrifice they deem required yet never seem to actually want to make any sacrifice themselves.

    There was an example yesterday with PM Brown in the UK blithering about having only 50 days if “we” are going to “save” the planet. Forget the “we” stuff, what are YOU going to do, Mr. Brown?

    They claim that we have too many people and that is killing the planet through energy consumption yet we have the technology available to reduce carbon emissions by probably 80 to 90 percent and they block it. Because it isn’t really about reducing carbon emissions. It is really about using carbon emissions and the control thereof to control and manage what gets done and where. It is using carbon emissions to create a managed economy and a centrally planned state. Simply moving to nuclear power and allowing people to continue their lifestyle without central planning and control is not acceptable to them.

    And the bottom line is that if people are the cause of the problem then each of them individually has the power to reduce the planet’s population by one and collectively they have the power to reduce the population by millions but they don’t because it isn’t *really* about reducing the population. It is really about controlling who can and who can not populate the planet. Read the works of our science czar. Their vision is of central planning.

    The fundamental problem with this approach is that a centrally planned society means that it is subject to catastrophic mistake. If the central planning does not take into account every single action by every single person and if all decisions are not correct, then they could create a systemic disaster such as we are currently seeing with the consequences of too much government manipulation of housing markets.

    In a free market millions of individuals approach problems in millions of different ways. An individual mistake means the individual suffers but does not impact another individual in another state. The entire system is free to “route around” problems and it can be done on a daily basis. One product becomes scarce, its price goes up, people begin buying less of that and more of an alternative. The producer sees more demand for the alternative and increases production. No government study was needed. It happened all by itself. No laws were needed or regulation written. Practically every boom/bust cycle can be traced back to government manipulation. The Great Depression was caused and extended by government intervention.

    But the bottom line is that the people who would preach to us about what we need to do to solve their problem are generally only out for their own interests. Fundamentally, they want all of us to suffer so they can realize their goal. They are rarely ever prepared to make a sacrifice themselves.

    I believe that is what Limbaugh was getting at. If they sincerely believe the world would be a better place with fewer people in it, then what are they waiting for? The reality is they believe the world would be a better place with less OTHER people in it.

  123. gt

    Perhaps you meant Democrat and Republican politicans, if so I agree with you.

    I am never sure what the “left” wants, its made of so many groups that all want different things – a consortium of convinence. Real conversatives simply believe that governments are composed of politicans who rarely manage to do anything properly – and therefore government should be as small and powerless as we can afford for it to be, a necessary evil. Oh yeah, i forgot, we want to keep as much of our hard earned money as possible, we can use it so much better than Washington. One world government – no way

  124. I support Rush: no apology necessary. The “do gooders” have assailed us for decades with their hypocritical bushwa, literally telling us (humans) that we are the scourge of the Earth and as such we, as a species, should be exterminated. Remembering Kenny Rogers’ “Coward of the County”, I think it’s high time we closed the doors with “them” inside and “lower ourselves to their level.” Hit back with all the force and frustration meted out by the enviro-wackos for all these years. Leave not a one of them standing!!! Right on Rush!!!

  125. Shame on you, Anthony Watts.

    You are guilty of selective quoting, something you routinely condemn in climate alarmists.

    Rush Limbaugh was referring to what Mr. Revkin wrote in his NYT blog:

    “…..one of the cheapest ways to curb emissions in coming decades would be to provide access to birth control for tens of millions of women around the world who say they desire it…..”

    “Birth control” in the Hard Left lexicon used at the New York Times includes free abortions on demand.

    Mr. Revkin also jokes about “”baby-avoidance carbon credits.”

    Mr. Revkin also writes that the “population-climate question” is acutely important in the USA since our per capita CO2 emissions are the highest in the world, and becuase we have a high “rate of population growth.”

    Mr. Revkin suggested that innocent unborn children should be aborted to preserve the Earth he lives on.

    Rush Limbaugh has opposed abortion for 30 years, and he called Revkin a coward, nothing more, nothing less.

  126. “… then let he who casts the first stone….. cast it at himself.” captainfish

    Thou art a wit, sir! You slay!

  127. I did not hear Rush, but I did hear a recording of Revkin, and I find what Revkin said to be a lot more offensive and disturbing.
    Revkin is basically saying that in the name of global warming, we need to reward people for not breeding. That is eugenics, and that is unacceptable.
    I think Revkin is the one who owes us all an apology.
    And since Rush, and nearly any conservative – and by the way, most skeptics- are told how we need to be dead, or silenced, or ridiculed, I really have no problem with Rush giving a little bit if pay back.

  128. For all those who look to others actions to justify their own, perhaps if we would calm down and realize that we have more in common than we do differences, the world would be a better place. To claim that there is a big conspiracy to deevolve society and eliminate most of the population is no better than to claim that all skeptics are funded by big oil, uneducated, and anti-nature. Is there a massive conspiracy to endorse global warming so a massive redistribution of wealth can occur? Maybe it would be more likely that people are less likely to think critically and more likely to accept that which they believe to be true and then find evidence to support that. Thinking about the glass being half full or empty. Scientific data being that glass we all bring our baggage into our interpretations. This thread has so many people who are not looking for answers but rather to validate what they already feel is true. We should always question ourselves and our motives as much as we question others. Anthony-I appreciate your work and everything you have done to promote intellegent discussion about important issues. I hope people will use your example and seek the truth for what it is and not what they want it to be. Hate leads to hate. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. I am not a warmist or a denier, a conservative or a liberal. I am merely an observer trying to do what is best for myself and others. Thank you Anthony.

  129. Anthony, while overboard and why they call them shock jocks, I disagree with you. Rush needs to keep on doing the outrageous comments. It is quite effective in pointing out the obsurdity of the position. No apology. There is too much rolling over to avoid conflict. People die when no one speaks out and opposes it.

  130. If you want a three-year old to stop throwing a temper tantrum in the store, walk away. If you want someone like Rush to stop saying nasty things, don’t report it. Rush is a troll. While I can’t think of a left-wing radio troll that is as strident as this post makes Rush out to be, I am betting there are some. It takes all kinds of trolls to be a troll. Lefty blog troll, righty blog troll. Lefty radio troll. Righty radio troll. None of them use well-researched and unbiased treatment of news and commentary, if you can call their noisy writing and ranting, news and commentary. Stridency loves overstatements and exaggerations and both sides belly up to that bar. So back to my original statement. Children will stop screaming if you ignore them. And then the rest of us can actually go about the business of making a difference using unbiased reason, dialogue, and investigation.

  131. Rush was pointing out the absurdity of Revkin’s argument and the overall hypocrisy of liberal control freaks. If you listened to the whole monologue, you would have a better appreciation for the manner which it was delivered.

    In my opinion, no apology is necessary. However, if Revkin wants to apologize to the millions of people who have been harmed by his AGW religion, I will accept it.

    Note that I won’t be holding my breath.

  132. Remember this?

    Scientist calls for death to humanity

    An award-winning Texas scientist was given a standing ovation after he advocated the extermination of 90 per cent of the Earth’s population by an airborne Ebola virus.

    The University of Texas evolutionary ecologist, Dr Eric R. Pianka, was addressing the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, in early March, after the academy had named him 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. . .

    Now nothing quite so extreme was proposed by Revkin, but how great a leap would it be for some minds to go from ‘carbon credits’ for no children to forced abortion to simple extermination?

    This kind of ‘reasoning’ has to be combatted from the start. In my view, Rush is to be commended for mincing no words in doing so.

    /Mr Lynn

  133. DN (17:06:25) :
    “When Algore converts his multi-million-dollar mansion to run on solar panels and unicorn flatulence, then he can have my light bulbs. Not before. In the meantime, I’ll visit WUWT for science, and I’ll listen to Rush for fun. ”

    Right on DN. I nearly pissed myself when I read this paragraph you wrote. Right on target, yet hilarious. I love it!

  134. Rush need not apologize, and Anthony I’m disappointed in your post and link to Media Matters for what Rush said.

    The whole transcript in context is viewable on the public side of Rush’s website under the article “Cap and Trade for Babies: One Child Policy Coming to USA?”. The discussion was around an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily about a panel Revkin was on regarding population control.

    Rush was commenting on how lefty busybodies always force others into what’s “best” for them, but they themselves live by another set of rules.

  135. I guess I’m having trouble understanding when it OK for somebodyn to tell me stridently that I should die because I am a waste of medicine, or because I am killing live, and when it is Ok for me to sah “Lead on, I’ll follow when I see it works.”

  136. Everyone here who thinks Rush should apologize should go and acquire a symbol which signifies their belief and attach it to their outer garments (a five pointed star served well in the Third Reich), then proceed to the local train siding and await the instructions of the Revkin/Obamites.

  137. We have a president (and 32 Czars) who are intently destroying a nation of laws and establishing a nation of cults, and this blog still counsels civil discourse. By what law will you enforce your intent?

  138. I don’t follow anyone who tries to tell me anything “stridently”. I will however, investigate the topic of their strident message and decide for myself what I will do, or if I will do anything at all. What I don’t quite get is why people get upset when someone becomes strident. Maybe it’s because I am a mother and teacher. You can’t get your feathers ruffled or be led around by strident children and expect to make it through the day.

  139. Rush usually runs long threads/monologues which when properly digested, make sense. If you try to eat it in 5 seconds or in short transcript snipets, the effect is lost and can appear inflammatory. I DOUBT VERY MUCH HE DID NOT SET THIS SENTENCE UP WITHOUT A LOT OF BACKGROUND.

    For people here, I have listened to Rush for years and he was warning us about this eco/climate change crowd long before big business and government equeally were forced to jump on the band, warning how it was really a disguised attempt at marginalizing liberties and expanding social (rather than scientific or moral) agendas. He was warning about this movement, without fear of looking like a dunce, well before this site became popular.

    Rush Limbaugh’s instincts and core beliefs are exceedingly accurate.

  140. Half the comments here show me there is little hope in this “debate”. Both sides resort to demonizing the other and the facts get lost in the middle. It makes me sick. Too many people here are sure they are right just as much as the other side does. They think everything is black vs. white. They are just as politicized as the other side and cause just as much harm. I’d much rather have more Roger Pielke Jr.’s around that may believe the government should reduce CO2 emissions, but doesn’t let that stand in the way of performing good, honest science. Unafraid of calling out the bad science and pointing out when the policies from his side are won’t work. Even at the expense of his reputation among the frothers.

    Anthony, thank you for actually trying to rise above this and calling out Rush for his stupid comments. Even if it seems like a lost cause amongst the eye for an eye crowd.

  141. Coming up against an organized group of proud bullies does not call for an army of etiquette students with graphing calculators. It calls for a group that can state their case in a way that truly confronts the other person as a person, as long as it uses reasoning skills instead of name calling. Rush did not call this guy a name. He created a scenario in people’s mind, a meme in fact that will stick in people’s mind, so that whenever they read about people being the problem their mind will instantly get a chuckle about it. No amount of polite debate will counter the likes of each year’s headlines and Al Gore quality soundbites.

    This isn’t a scientific debate! It’s a war between exactly two opposing armies. One side is evil. One side is good. Evil here is defined as wanting to destroy people’s lives. That they claim noble motives and demonize the other side and use the bullying force of The End of The World as a bludgeon is not a reason to get soft about confronting them. Nobody who looks into how much data is being buried by them can cling to the polite assumption that their motives are anything but utterly corrupt.

    It’s fine to maintain a scientific debate outlook when debating a given study, but only if the other side also comes to the table in polite fashion. But not even the academic types on their side will do it! Yet your side falls for their polite act as they withhold and even destroy data?!

    You are in an abusive relationship. Your debate partner is passive-aggressive. To your face they politely explain that they lost their data. Behind your back they call for your arrest for treason.

    A wake up call is in order for those here who claim Rush’s standard issue twist of ideas mashed up with humor should have been avoided: Americans just voted Obama into office! As you toiled and sweated to present your case with polite logic, the other side womped your ass in the worst way possible. What worse president could you imagine if you based your own vote on climate matters?

    Now you strongly call for more of the same.

    The debate has become political instead of scientific. And politics is all about demonizing the other side. To hide from this fact is to lose the election! I’m not saying to introduce vitriolic into a forum like this or in comments on other sites. I am saying that the scientific crowd on your side should stop trying to reign in those very few people, specifically Rush and Beck versus literal presidents and vice presidents. They know well what they are doing and what they are doing is adjusting their message to attract the maximum number of people who have no time to decide complex issues for themselves.

    The option is science vs. religion and its the traditionally religious side that is the only side that can get your message out there. But vitriol vs. vitriol must be accepted as merely being part of the game as long as name calling itself is avoided. Name calling is an art though and in fact one of Rush’s most effective memes was to coin the term “Feminazi”. The question is whether a name can STICK or not. If not then there will be a backlash. Yet even a most appalling slur of the most perverse kind is used every day in the MSM, that is to call Tea Party people ‘Tea Baggers’, which refers to a form of oral sex in which testicles are placed fully in someone’s mouth. That is the *only* meaning that “tea bagging” has.

    To break the rules of polite debate is exactly what is required in response to the other side doing it first. Economic studies support a tit-for-tat flexibility in response as the best outcome one. Only when the side that got nasty reforms itself should you, in principle, let your own nasty side take a rest. In debate you are not allowed to question motives. In politics you are not allowed to debate *except* by questioning of motives. Anything else is drowned out in a shouting match of soundbite vs. soundbite.

    The *polite* side of the PUBLIC debate comes down to “CO2 is causing warming!” vs. “No it isn’t.” with both showing charts that prove their case. The *emotional* side of the public debate is the impression made on lay listeners. Does anybody here really think the objective and in fact disastrous failure to sway public opinion enough to render the other side impotent has been caused by being too mean as opposed to too nice?

    I agree that it is morally undesirable to resort to questioning the motives of the other side of a logical debate, or to call them a hypocrite and thus a fraud. But adopting this as a philosophy that makes you withdraw support from the only two people in the entire world who are getting your message out there is pure folly. Note how the left has never been effective in creating a backlash against Rush except one that used fake quotes and backfired right back with greater force. Unless an edgy and thus *memorable* statement creates true outrage then it is effective!

    The art of creating MEMORABLE statements requires that you break the rules of logical debate.

  142. Let’s stick to the science of climate, applying enough politics to make sure it stays a science. That should be more than enough to fill the bandwidth.

    All Rush was saying, in a blunt way, was, “You first!”

    I sent around some information this morning on “unprecedented” Swine flu activity. Here’s what I got back from one friend:

    “When the death toll reaches a few million, I will start worrying. Actually, no I won’t; I’m a Malthusian and I figure we are long overdue for a major population adjustment. I won’t like it if I or my nearest and dearest are among the culled, but if the overall result is a much reduced world population, maybe the chance is worth it.”

    and

    “Meanwhile the same news outlets who are busy whipping up a frenzy of worry about flu are ignoring the rapid acidification of the oceans due to increased CO2. Change the balance of sea water and you change what lives or can live in it. And on it: what are the coastal dwellers who mainly survive on fish going to live on in 2050 when there are no shallow water fish left?”

    That’s what we are up against. I’m with Rush. “You first.”

  143. gt (19:57:18) :Maybe OT, but people, the LEFT and the RIGHT are two faces of of the same coin.

    ———————–

    I’d agree to the extent that the Authoritarian Left and Authoritarian Right are very similar – the Liberal Left and Liberal Right are more like each other than they are like their Authoritarian counterparts. The Authoritarians, of either stripe, want to force people to do their will, the Liberals of Left or Right basically want people to be left to their own devices – they just disagree on the extent to which there should be safety be safety nets or protections against the complete B******s making everyone else’s life a misery.

    Have a look at http://www.politicalcompass.org . It makes a lot more sense than simplistic Left/Right definitions.

  144. Rush is right. These people like Revkin sincerely want to control our lives, for no good reason. THEY are the radicals. They need to be strongly rebuffed.

    Note, Rush did not say that someone or we or the government should kill Revkin, Rush said that Revkin should kill himself [or kill himself first if he had the conviction of his pontifications].

  145. [snip -this has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is an inflammatory statement, please take it elsewhere - Anthony]

  146. Come to think of it, if any of those people DID off themselves to “save the planet”, their estate would probably be awarded “carbon credits” which would then, of course, be taxed at 50%.

  147. I wonder how Rush and the rest of the MSM feel about losing their position of authority on news and information? The blogospher and the Internet are the new authority on news and information. Here we can easily separate fact from fiction, and we are very efficient at it.

  148. Well, Anthony, you sure stirred up a nest of hornets with this one.
    I guess we’re not just one big happy family of AGW deniers, all on the same page, after all. Whoda guessed?
    In my opinion, Rush eats with his mouth open, but I don’t care if he apologizes or not. I don’t watch Jerry Springer, either.

  149. Don’t much like or listen to old Rush…. listening to Beck channeling Howard Beal gets me riled enough…. at my age I’ve got to worry about heart stuff… but, satire is almost by definition over the top. Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” might get a blast from Anthony. When you want to make the absurdity of a position clear, make it personal: you first! I like Andy Revkin. I want him to live. I want him to get smart.

  150. I am happy to name the group to go after first..environmentalists. They have a death toll greater than 3 times World War 1 and 2 together. They can help the planet by not exhaling.

  151. If Revkin and his ilk want the rest of us to pay (issue a carbon credit) someone for not having a child, would Revkin also eventually award a carbon credit for killing someone? Oh, wait a minute, they definitely would, it is known as abortion.

  152. Oh, good grief. I read this and the first thing that came to mind was Jonathan Swift. (To give responders credit, there were two mentions of his name.) Anthony, I love your stuff, but since when does it make sense to take on obvious satire as if it was real and demand an apology. It just makes one look like a fool.

    REPLY: If Rush had said “you first” it would have been effective satire. If he was aiming for satire I think he missed the mark. -A

  153. What Rush said was thought provoking–both suicide bombers and pop. control social engineers are a part of a broader culture of death. I still remember the retarded girl in Iraq they used to blow up a fruit stand. She would have no more value to the eugenicists than she did for the terrorists. I think a man is known by what angers him, and I see something noble in Rush’s anger. Besides, he framed it as a question.

    On the other hand, A. Watts prefers to take the high road, be a gentlemen and a scholar, etc. etc., so that is admirable also.

    Rush should actually appologize for being a bonehead during the primaries. I’ll be in and out but he can call tomorrow.

  154. Off base?

    I don’t know about that.
    In the words of Lanny Davis, Where’s the proportionality?

    I listen to and read left and right radio and blogs. Relatively speaking this little fopa by Rush isn’t much.

    Heck even the regular crap thrown here from RC is that bad or worse every day.

    Far worse is the Mike Malloy and other left wingers.
    Even Ed Schultz gets out of hand calling Republicans SOBs

    Keith Olberman is as vial attack dog as there is. He and Maddow engage in perpetual attacks on Palin and Republicans.

    But more than all this talk is the ultimate vicious attacks by public officials and policy makers pushing their contirived agenda upon the masses with insultingly unethical means.

    Maintaining some pretense of civil discourse while perpetrating malfeasance is no less offensive than anything Rush has ever said.

  155. Frank (18:25:30) :

    … Demanding apologies constitutes a “humanitarian” threat to free thought …

    Don’t like what Rush says? Ignore him.

    Frank, I agree.

    Anthony, please forgive me if this stray’s a little off topic, but I think this needs to be said and has been missed lately. Here is my reply to a poster on this same topic on Climate Change Fraud, as he was going off how proud he was of the NFL for blocking Rush’s recent NFL investment attempt. I think it is helpful sometime to put some things into perspective:

    BLOG Poster:


    So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault.

    To which I replied:

    I don’t care for Rush Limbaugh either, however, let us weigh this a little bit shall we.

    a) A controversial, conservative radio talk show host is denied partial ownership in an NFL football team for not making comments that he was accused of making.

    …while…

    b) A convicted animal killer/torturer, guilty of facilitating dog fighting rings, guilty of brutally torturing and killing hundreds of dogs, is allowed to continue to be an NFL superstar and positive roll model?

    What’s wrong with this picture (if you have a brain)??

    The reason why I post this is to simply illustrate how insignificant this rhetorical back and forth banter really is when you compare to real life consequences.

    Rush Limbaugh and Andy Revkin can say anything they wish, and the more they say these things, the less people usually listen. The fact that they CAN say these things however, is perhaps the most important RIGHT we enjoy in this country. Our real problem is not what Revkin or Rush say, our real problem is the fact that there are those in powerful positions (such as our president, his administration, people that surround and support this administration, and more…) that are feverishly working to abolish these rights. In particular, this goes right to the heart of the AGW debate. One of the reasons why we are where we are in this AGW / climate debate, is because of the suppression of our fundamental rights to vocally express ourselves anyway we see fit.

    This further feeds into a previous post on here concerning the signing of the Copenhagen Treaty, and the potentially detrimental effects it will have on our personal freedom’s in this country. I would further that, coupled with the current attacks on our 1st Amendment right to free speech, the Copenhagen Treaty has the potential to allow foreign bodies (like the U.N.) to being to control and dictate this fundamental right.

    If you don’t like someone’s actions (such as these enviro-nuts), then SPEAK UP! Let everyone know what these nuts are doing not what they are saying. Be loud about it and exercise your freedom of speech! Just be aware, what you say, may be heard, and therefore, you take personal responsibility for those things that you say.

    The bottom line is, the foundation of ALL OF THIS, is our FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

  156. I disagree with much of what Rush says but the fact that he gives Democrats the vapors is reason enough for me to be glad he is out there. The comparison is lame and actually trivializes terrorism which is far from usual for Rush but when there is a political movement that sees humanity as an evil blight on planet earth and tries everything possible to impart that view to children (David Suzuki told a class of little kids that their Prime Minister hated them), I think civility is not really an issue anymore.

    The leftist media should thank Rush for giving them something real to be offended about. It must have been getting dull making up all those quotes about him wanting to own slaves and kill black people to make soylent green for white people.

  157. Steve S. (21:37:29) :


    Even Ed Schultz gets out of hand calling Republicans SOBs

    Hehehe, I was waiting for someone to mention Ed Schultz. I lived in Fargo, North Dakota for 25 years having to put up with Ed Schultz. This guy is so incredibly laughable. I could tell you so many stories about this guy, like how he accidentally shot his dog while taping an outdoor sportsman show. Or how people in Fargo really feel about this guy. He is a joke among jokes. I knew his ex-wife Moreen pretty well. Ask good old Ed about that someday (hint: he was very abusive).

    Anyway, thanks for spurring on memories!

  158. You should listen to the whole discussion before pronouncing judgement. Limbaugh’s focus wasn’t on bombing, it was on sending other people to do the dirty work.

  159. No. Rush is right.

    Revkin helps the crazy eco fascists with his propaganda and lazy journalism. He refuses to scrutinize the catrophist claims and the crazy solutions like the sterilization of whole populations, forced abortions, the deconstruction of irrigation systems and dams, the global abolition of producing meat for consumption, the outlawing of CO2, etc…..

    HOLDREN, Obama’s own Science Czar is an Author of a book that advocates this misanthropy…. Where is Revkins outrage on that???

    Rush is right. These eco fascists are similar to Jihad radicals and if they do advocate population reduction? Well, why don’t they go be the first ones to remove themselves for the greater good?

    Rush is only mirroring the Eco fascist’s misanthropy back at them. Don’t blame him for that Anthony…..

    I excuse his Hyperbole. I think it is necessary, because no one else is outing these crazy environmentalists on the claims that they are making. Certainly not Lazy journalists like Revkin.

  160. This outburst from Rush is another sign of the times.

    CAGW isn’t a scientific debate, or a political Left vv Right argument, it is a religion. Expect an explosion if Copenhagen is agreed – religious wars are always the worst.

  161. I apologize if someone has already linked to the entire discussion by Limbaugh but it seems as though few have read his entire session in context. Those forming opinions should go here first :

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125112.guest.html

    Some excerpts below of what Rush said:

    “Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing — carbon dioxide — has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant. Treaties like Kyoto and the upcoming economic suicide pact to be forged in Copenhagen have focused on the instruments and byproducts of our civilization.”

    “Now the focus is shifting increasingly to the people who built it. New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled ‘Covering Climate: What’s Population Got To Do With It?’ People who need people they are not. Participating via Web cam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, ‘if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn’t there be a carbon value to that?’ He went on to say that ‘probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children.’

    “‘More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions,’ [the New York Times environmental writer] blogged, wondering ‘whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation.'” There is a country that has such a policy, the one child policy and vigorously endorses it. That’s the ChiComs. And do we not have a White House communications director who considers mass murderer Mao Tse-tung her favorite philosopher? ”

    And below is Rush’s big question which I interpret as rhetorical, you be the judge. I did not hear it so I cannot comment on the intonation.

    ” This guy from the New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on earth, Andrew Revkin, Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying? Why do you want every one of us except you and your buddies on the left? See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they’re always for everybody else. You go and limit the number of kids you have. You go drive a Yugo. You go get rid of your big house. You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that. But I, Barack Obama, I’m going to throw big parties every night in the White House, I’m going to bring in Earth, Wind and Fire, I’m going to bring in Charlie Pride. This is happening. They’re having gigs at the White House. ”

    Hope this puts some things in perspective. Note the use of the word “if” in the question.

    BTW, although I don’t listen to Rush every day, I suspect he has been more effective at converting people to skeptics than almost anyone. After all he has tons of listeners and he does quote a lot of factual information while entertaining his listeners. And he has some of the best advisors on climate.

  162. Lesson learned from this:

    Don’t counter insanity…with COUNTER-insanity.

    Its one thing to get angry and passionate. But beware those emotions (Heck I love ‘em)….but they will lead you off the track.

    Comparing what he terms “environmentalist wackos” with “jihadist terrorists” is an emotional, anti-logical, NONSENSICAL argument.

    Meanwhile….when the explosions cease and the dust fades….we all return to more level-headed arguments.

    Arguments that discuss radiative forcing and what-not.

    MESSAGE TO RUSH: Be careful, that you do not become…the very thing you despise.

    And don’t counter insanity…with COUNTER-insanity.

    Calm down everyone….and have a good nite.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  163. Still waiting for WUWT to post the rest of the quote from Rush, Anthony.

    If you got it from MediaMatters, you probably don’t know the whole story.

    Like the MSM.

  164. Anthony ; I really don’t think this needs to be on this site.

    Just advice from an old neighbor.

  165. JHansford: “Rush is right. These eco fascists are similar to Jihad radicals and if they do advocate population reduction?”

    You think he is right because…you feel those reactive feelings of rage yourself!

    And when you do….logic and reason leave the room in fear of their lives.

    To make a claim comparing cowards who blow up women and children in a crowded marketplace….to the “environmentalist wackos”, as Rush has been calling them for years and years and years (and to his peril–because there are some decent environmentalists…like me…but he throws that baby out with the bathwater way to often)….but to make a claim comparing terrorists to these people is NONSENSICAL.

    So….just paint with your non-scientific broad brush over the nuances here and side with Rush’s mad ravings….or….TAKE A DEEP ****** breath, and really examine the issues here from a non-emotional and scientific tone, and then we can talk.

    Anthony is 100% right: Rush crossed the line (and ruined his platform).

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  166. This old proverb…relevant to the latest Rush soap opera chapter:

    TWO blankety-blank wrongs don’t make ONE right!!

    Order.

    Order in the court…..

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  167. In unrelated news: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/10/20/bill-maher-stirs-crowd-plea-obama-make-limbaugh-explode-bag-meat
    “Bill Maher Stirs Crowd With Plea for Obama to Make Limbaugh ‘Explode Like a Bag of Meat’ The death wishes for Rush Limbaugh just never stop . . .”

    He dishes it and receives it. I’m not a fan or listener, but most people need to notice that RL has lost at least 85+ lbs lately. The double chin is gone. He might be approaching a normal size.

  168. After taking the time to read both Revkin’s comments that lead to Rush’s comments today and reading Rush’s comments in their entirety, I believe this entire article/thread to be a red herring.

    Anthony, your moral outrage is misdirected. If you read all the way through the transcript (which you, out of character, failed to link to) Rush’s larger point was on the sanctity of human life (some of you will scoff – after all, you’ll point out, he just called for someone to kill himself, but bear with me) and our God given right to individual liberty. Revkin, has more or less called for less human beings to exist; for other life forms (his fellow humans) to ignore one of their fundamental biological instincts and functions as a means to saving the planet. The ‘planet’, which in this case is more of an ideology of how things should be than a tangible object, is being elevated to the same/higher level than an individual’s right to exist and gives the State and avenue of power to supplant the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It judges an individual not on their merits and their minds, nor does it acknowledge their rights to existence and self-determination. Rather, it views them as units that are expendable depending on the statistical analysis of their impact on a conceptual ‘planet’. If allowed to succeed, it strips future generations of their free will to think for themselves and make their own determinations about how to live their lives. This runs counter to everything this country was founded on and is an affront logic, reason, science, and basic humanity.

    What makes such an idea ever more worse is the nonchalant fashion in which it is proposed. Revkin and others like him don’t name anyone specific and tell them to stand aside for the good of the planet. If they did, I would expect the outrage to look an awful lot like the article and the posts above (at least I would hope). Instead, they do something far, far worse: they go after those that do not yet have the ability to speak for and defend themselves. Whereas most of us look to future and hope that we leave the world a better place than we found it for those that will follow us, they look to the future and think it better that some or all of those that follow us should never come into existance in the first place. Good intentions aside, I find it wholly sinister. The misguided often accomplish more inhumanity and suffering than the down right evil.

    This is where Rush’s genius in all of this comes into play. By putting Revkin’s face on the mass of those who should perish for the good of the planet, he not only draws out Revkin’s hypocrisy, but also the hypocrisy of those who failed to condemn those that put forth the idea in the first place. Sadly, Anthony, but in this case, that means you. Revkin is suggesting that others make the ultimate sacrifice for his ideology. If that is what he believes, there is nothing wrong with asking (which is Rush did and not demanding as the this seems to be portrayed by both you and Revkin) that he lead by example rather than put the burden on those that cannot speak for themselves. Rush’s choice of words in calling him out puts the whole issue front and center. In the shock of Rush asking Revkin directly why he doesn’t kill himself for what he believes, Rush uncloaks the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of the environmentalist’s solution and how it oddly never applies to them, just everyone else.. It doesn’t apply to them, just those that follow. You may not like how Rush said it, but as Rush himself often points out, sometimes you must demonstrate absurdity by being absurd.

    Unfortunately, your demand for an apology for his phrasing shields Revkin and his ilk from further critical examination. You are standing up to defend the public discourse from Rush but failing to stand up and defend the public, without which there would be no discourse, from Revkin (at least in this particular case – this rest of this website speaks loudly for your defense of the public from bad science and policy). In this case, though, you denounce Rush for telling Revkin ‘you first’ while passing no judgement on Revkin’s idea to deprive untold numbers more the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    All that being said, you have done a terrific job creating a site that fosters free and open discussions such as this. While I disagree with you strongly enough on this point to write a response, I have the utmost respect for what you’ve done here and with your surface stations project. You have done more for free and open inquiry for the truth than whole graduating classes of journalists and I hope this site continues to be at the forefront of defending science and truth.

    REPLY: Just an FYI, I checked earlier in the day for a transcript on Rush’s site and found none. Transcripts sometimes take awhile to be posted. Later a commenter pointed out it was online and I did in fact ad a link to it in the story. – Anthony

  169. SInce this is my first post here, let me first thank you for all you do here – I look forward to checking out your site every day. You are, quite literally, a hero among men – an island of sanity among the madness.

    Perhaps that’s why it disturbs me to see you join the crowd who are constantly harping “Rush Limbaugh (or other prominent conservative voice) said x today, and wasn’t it horrible?” Allow me to humbly join the ranks of those respectfully urging that you “just not go there”. The people normally doing that are usually intentionally trying to create hysteria where none is called for in order to sidetrack the debate.

    I thought Grant Hodges, and others, above, analyzed the whole thing rather well. This was just a melodramatic way of pointing out the hypocracy in Revkin’s own words by taking them to THEIR OWN logical – albeit extreme – conclusion. The fact that Limbaugh prefaces what he says with “if he really thinks that” proves the point. This was obviously not a serious call for suicide – although Revkin disingenuously pretends he’s not 100% sure about that.

    Ironically, isn’t the writing by guys like Revkin – who clearly feel that the Earth would be a far better place if most of its inhabitants (well, the HUMAN ones, anyway) did not exist – far more offensive than anything Limbaugh has to say? Aren’t they essentially saying the equivalent of “I wish you were dead” to practically everyone? Unlike Limbaugh, these guys aren’t being hyperbolic and satirical when they say what they do – they’re perfectly serious, and shamelessly open about it.

    I’m vehemently opposed to Limbaugh on several issues, but on AGW I think he had served as a voice that has loudly and clearly exposed the politics of the AGW crowd. He’s going to have to say a lot worse before I, personally, would get excited about it.

    Anyway – to end on a positive note – thanks again for everything you do. There’s a lot of money and power at stake with the AGW movement – you must have to put up with a lot!

  170. I’ve given Rush’s rhetorical suggestion to Mr Revkin a lot of thought this afternoon. Then I read the whole monologue and I have to say that while I don’t like language like this generally and wish Rush had kept it non-personal, sometimes it is just so infuriating to have these Leftist intellectuals so cavalierly talk about preventing human birth as the Nazis talked about the Final Solution. It’s very close in logic and when you consider how civilized Germans ended up committing horrible crimes against humanity, it really is not that far away with that kind of talk. And the Left always wants to get into everyone else’s business. They want “them” to do this or that but think that they themselves are too enlightened and needed by the masses to take their own advice: Yes, tax them up the yin-yang for the good of all, but count me out. Let’s reduce the population, but let them do it; it doesn’t involve my little world. Babies? Heck, let’s prevent them from even getting here and ruining the planet which I enjoy so much. What sickos. I don’t thing we have to get coarse and personal — might just cut off communication –but I could be wrong. Maybe those who propose the prevention of human life need a wake up call.

  171. While knowing that Limbaugh is far right, I cannot help but think that you are overreacting Antony. I know we are all supposed to be polite to each other, but both you and Revkin choose to be deliberately obtuse by ignoring the point made by Limbaugh and just concentrating on the (actually) logical solution.
    “If you hate CO2 so much – stop exhaling it !” is actually quite funny and imho makes a relevant point.

  172. With 188 comments, I think most everybody has had their say. Some say I was wrong to criticize, others supportive. It is about what I expected.

    Having been on the receiving end of “why don’t you just kill yourself” suggestions myself, I don’t like to see it repeated by anyone, no matter the stature or situation. I was once told by a local eco-person that I should “study CO2 by locking myself in my garage with my SUV with the motor running”. While she couldn’t even get the chemical compound right, it was then that I chose not to reply in kind by wishing death on my opponents.

    I simply think Rush could have chosen better words to voice the outrage, such as “if you really think this way, then you first, Mr. Revkin.” which would be humorous satire.

    In Rush’s defense, doing live radio (or television) is tough when you ad lib everything. Eventually everyone who broadcasts this way will let loose a zinger for which they’ll take flak.

    The only thing I can do is to stick to my principles. I try to keep the discourse civil here on WUWT. My dislike of the Limbaugh comment is a reflection of that. While I strongly disagree with Mr. Revkin on many, many, climate related issues, he has always been civil and respectful to me, and Rush probably does not have the first hand experience with him that I do in that regard.

    Make of it what you will, but taking the high road in keeping discussions civil has been my choice and one that I do not regret.

    Hopefully some good will come of the discussion. Let’s move on. There are more important issues. -Anthony

  173. It seems that was is not understood is that the time for Harvard/Oxford style debates are over. That time never happened. By the time us skeptics actually got the facts and figures to show that the AGWer’s were full of it too many governments had already bought the bill of goods. The First Climate War is over. We lost it. But that doesn’t mean all is lost. Fotrunately the enemy was unable to enact complete victory and with the science now catching up to what we all believed to be true, there is a chance to turn the tide. But that tide will not turn by “civil” debate alone since the enemy has no desire to engage in such. No, we skeptics also need to have those who are willing to fight in the trenches. Now I know not everyone is not capable of getting knee deep in the mud to fight the enemy, and you don’t need to, just feed us the ammo, in this case the scientific data, and let us get down and dirty and fight the enemy. Taking the high road is useless if all it leads to is a cliff.
    To quote Sean Connery in “The Untouchables”: “If he brings a knife, you bring a gun. If he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That is how you get to Capone, that is the Chicago way.” And with the White House controlled by the Chicago Connection(Obama, Emmanuel, etc.), those of us willing to get muddy need the support those who are masterful at obtaining and breaking down the “evidence” of the AGW drinkers.

    As far as Anthony’s reading of the quote, I think you misunderstood it. You seemed to have implied more than what it was. Rush wasn’t telling Revkin to actually kill himself, he was telling him time for the AGWer’s to man up and live according to their own beliefs, otherwise STFU and drop the whole AGW issue. Hence the connection to those who recruit, train, and send others’ children to be suicide killers. When it comes to knowing what Rush is saying, best to know his style intimately. No need for any apology, for nothing to apoligize for. And for my last movie quote, this from John Wayne in “The Shootist”: “I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”

    One last thing, you really should not delve into this arena Anthony. Really not part of what your blog has come to be. Leave the hardcore politcs to those who live, eat, and breathe it.

  174. The dirty secret of the extreme enviro movement is that their agenda requires 90% of the human race to die. Who decides? Why not insist the nutjobs who believe in this garbage be first in line to walk the walk?

  175. I’ve listened to Limbaugh from the time he first went national, initially thought he was somewhat deranged, but continued listening throughout Bush #1 when I nearly totally disagreed with his support of Bush, and happened to hear his discussion about Revkin live as he delivered it.

    Here Limbaugh is totally correct, imo: if the “Revkins”, and worse, of the World are going to make such draconian rules concerning what is apparently a path toward achieving their own meaning in life, surely they should be among the first to follow their own rules.

    What’s the problem?

  176. J. Peden (00:14:35) asks:
    “What’s the problem?”

    The problem is Revkin is least biased of MSM journalists out there and he is the most willing to let sceptics express their views. He is not a AGW dogmatist like many other journalists and that makes Rush’s characterization of Revkin unfair.

    If he had gone after a more deserving target like Krugman then I would see your point.

  177. Personal attacks are a sign of incompetence.

    But Alinsky Rules work.

    And let me add that the death of millions (billions?) for the cause has been a feature (in theory and practice) of the left for the whole of the 20th century.

    Stalin had his Kulacks. Mao was down on intellectuals. And a certain German was looking for some unpopulated land near his home country.

    What has Rush done to one of these social engineers? He just said “put your money where your mouth is” or “you first”.

    Genocide always begins with making the object of the genocide “them” or “non-people” or “those standing in the way of progress”.

    I think Rush has done a service. Make the genociders live up to their own principles.

    I have written about how the genocide machine works in a different context:

    http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/how-to-put-end-to-drug-users.html

    And just to keep it all even handed the context is a genocide proposed by the American right.

  178. How sensitive we have all beocme in this politically correct age. When a friend tells me to “go to hell” does he mean it?. I hope not. But even if he does do I expect an apology? N

  179. wattsupwiththat (23:47:50) :
    Make of it what you will, but taking the high road in keeping discussions civil has been my choice and one that I do not regret.

    All that I can say to that is that it is a good thing that you weren’t involved with the creation of our country. No one ever said Liberty was pretty.

  180. Well, I surely don’t think that the ultimate moderate opportunist Andy Revkin is the most accurate possible recipient of Rush’s comments – but more generally, I surely do agree with Limbaugh’s comments.

    So far, only the psychology, independence, and prestige of the kids is taken hostage in their holy fight against climate change – but that can change and the underlying dynamics is pretty much isomorphic to the Islamic jihad.

  181. In polite society we have books like:

    The Population Bomb

    In not so polite society we have Rush.

    In polite society we have Obama science adviser John Holdren suggesting:

    http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/07/little-science-advice.html

    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
    • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
    • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

    In not so polite society we have Rush. Rush’s #1 problem is that he never learned “New Speak”. He needs a visit to a re-education camp.

  182. How sensitive we have all become in this politically correct age. When a friend tells me to “go to hell” does he mean it?. I hope not. But even if he does, do I take offence? No. Do I expect an apology? No. Does anyone really think that Mr. Limbaugh was telling Mr. Revkin to commit suicide?

    I think that Mr. Watts, as the host to this most quoted climate realistic website, is right to be careful as to what has been posted but is wrong to take Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks seriously. I note that Mr. Revkin did not!

  183. Note that in this quote Andy Revkin is himself not an endorser of these ideas…

    “I wasn’t endorsing any of this, simply laying out the math and noting the reality that if one were serious about the population-climate intersection, it’d be hard to avoid asking hard questions about USA population growth,” wrote Revkin.

    Note that in Australia there are financial incentives for having kids (this is done for economical reasons) so a financial incentive for not having kids is to me just the other side of the coin. I remember reading an article about France persuading people to have more French kids over concerns of multiculturalism and how the French culture was being lost. At the end of the day people should be allowed to make up their own minds about how many kids they should be having. I am not exactly in favour of any of these kinds of incentives, in whichever way they’re running.

  184. J H Folsom (17:14:05) : I mean did you post this to “balance” the monckton post that riled up a few here for being extreme right wing rhetoric.

    extreme right wing rhetoric? I’m puzzled.

  185. As a British observer I’m sure Rush Limbaugh and Andy Revkin have both said regrettable things.

    It would serve them well to sit down together and discuss their differences over a nice cup of tea.

  186. Kevin S – well said!

    Anthony,

    I’m sorry, I can’t agree with you that Limbaugh should apologize. For what? Confronting a not so indirect attack upon our current way of life and futures?

    I’ve said similar things myself. If the Global Warming Alarmists and some environmentalists, and I’ve heard them, say that there are too many people and they ‘know which ones of us should be the first to reduce the population’ this is a direct threat to all who don’t agree with AGW alarmism or human environmental threat to Earth.

    Many AGW “Believers” present themselves as serious about the absurd, offensive and/or devastating things they say and/or say they believe and have followed through with proposing (and often passing) nonsensical laws and diverting trillions of dollars, national economies, entire gullible worldwide populations and nations into not only wasting their treasuries on fraudulent AGW or enviro claims, policies and/or laws but are, at least indirectly, guilty of contributing to the loss of lives of those of us who cannot be saved or helped in many needy situations (which are causes of wars) because of consequent loss of money that would allow for life saving aid. Waste may not be just waste, it can be, and often is fatal.

    I’m sorry. No I’m not – AGW alarmism isn’t a simple and victimless endeavor, it’s a serious and deadly powerplay.

    Anthony, maybe you haven’t had the unfortunate opportunity to be confronted with these folks, I have. There are many AGW and envrio-alarmists who wish me, and you, a very short life, and laugh with glee at the prospect.

    No, I’m afraid these matters are not simple academic pursuits, but actual life and death threats in everyday life.

    This reminds me of the Dr. Melvin B. Gottlieb, Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in the 1980’s who I was privileged to hear at a seminar and who said that although much hope was being placed in fusion energy that if he was faced with his teams success within a few number of years being responsible for the successful future of the country he would not continue. He well realized the complexity of the project and that the science couldn’t be forced – it had to be achieved.

    As with real causes of real climate change agreeable sources of energy have been seriously sought for many years as the science has to be achieved, not because there is an election, convention, treaty signing deadline, etc. Passionate partially-informed concern with unrealistic expectations, such as with AGWers and some enviros, is irrational and can lead to dangerous situations. These situations (the imposition of alarmist dictates upon the general public) must be confronted, sometimes, often directly and in-kind.

    The approach of WUWT has been more scientific, and well done. In another vein, political/cultural/social Limbaugh has effectively confronted the more militant AGWers and enviros, etc. somewhat in-kind. This blog can chastise another media for it’s approach, of course, but it does so at risk of losing focus – as well as being wrong.

  187. Joel Shore (17:16:00) says:
    “DDT was never banned worldwide and the deaths due to malaria have much more to do with mosquitoes developing resistance to DDT ….. See http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/
    ————————–
    Please, if you absolutely must read deltoid’s “take” on ddt then also read the official WHO statement which, largely as you expect, is different:

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html

  188. Is the indoctrination of children in our schools so very different from what jihadists do to maintain their control ?

    There’s a lot of fear in the under 10s nowadays as witness that recent UK government TV ad setting out the imagined consequences of CO2 emissions.

    Has democracy lost the plot ?

  189. I agree that Rush’s statement was over the line, but I think that you miss the point he was trying to make.

    He was trying to point out that all of these extreme, return us to the stoneage, measures that environmentalists want us to take to fix the world always seem to only apply to us, not to them. Last report I saw Al Gore’s house uses the same amount of electricity as a small town. He flies everywhere in a private check. Yet, he wants me to only use one sheet of toilet paper, drive a cardboard car, and fill my house with mercury time-bombs called CFL’s.

    That was the point that Rush was making. The environmentalists are not a lead from the front crowd.

  190. @Grant Hodges (18:10:28) :

    I agree with you.

    From this point of view ANY arguments against Mr Limbaugh’s statements or intentions are meaningless and pointless. But to say what you said, Mr Hodges, one has to listen Mr Limbaugh for some time and know the U.S.A. from the perspective of politics.

    Not for the first time Mr Watts who knows __nothing__ about US politics evinces a bit leftist bias using the same pattern as eco wackos do – taking a topic out of context and making misjudges. In my opinion of course.

    Regards

    REPLY:
    I think you are confusing “decorum” with “leftist bias”. – Anthony

  191. The guy gets paid to talk loudly about controversial subjects. He’s a professional bigmouth. He is there to entertain those who get a thrill out of hearing controversial things said through a medium usually careful to mind it’s PC’s and Q’s.

    I’d hesitate to call it “infotainment” because Rush doesn’t seem to care about the truth or falsity of what he says.

    Not a useful ally to the cause IMO.

  192. It’s time Limbaugh goes back to his pills, again. The man is an utter disgrace for human being and deserved to be either euthanised or at least put away in a secure surrounding.

  193. Well said, Rush. It’s called “walking the walk.” At the moment, it seems, we have too much “talking the talk” by those who want others to make a sacrifice. And while Revkin is busy topping himself, Al Gore can pledge to stop flying around the world in his gas-guzzling, co2-spewing, private jet.

  194. First, Andy is a reporter and although he’s concerned about the possibility of ‘9 billion people on a warming planet’ I don’t think he, even in quiet private moments, believes anybody should actually die to ‘save the planet’. He’s much more inclined to worry about people who would die due to the ‘effects of climate change’.

    So, I feel Rush should apologize to Andy.

    Second, many of his commenters, however, go on and on about exactly what Rush is talking about. And I myself over at dotearth in a comment of my own quoted someone and suggested that that commenter should ‘go first’ and save us the trouble. I may even have done it more than once.

    And if someone had asked me to apologize (and I don’t remember anyone did) I would not have.

  195. Lord Monckton’s speech at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. described a number of questionable environmental policies that killed innocents in the third world. Radical environmentalists demanded that DDT be banned in the 1970s and malaria deaths rose to nearly a million children a year. What is more obscene, to accuse environmentalist of murdering children by strapping on bombs like jihad radicals or accuse environmentalist of committing genocide against the poorest of the poor? Mao killed 70,000,000 people in his purges in China, 34 to 49 million under Stalin, and far Rachel Carson has caused the genocide of 40,000,000 children. Environmentalist extremists rank up there with other homicidal maniacs of the twentieth century. It’s time they be called on their horrific crimes against humanity.

    U.S. lawmakers have demanded 1/3 of our grain crops to be diverted from food to biofuels in order to save the planet and doubled the price of grain. Affluent consumers of foodstuffs can afford to pay farmers a higher price for their grain, it’s just too bad the poorest of the poor will starve while environmental activists save the planet. Desperately poor residents of Haiti are left to eating mud pies while western doogooders drive their Flex Fueled vehicles to save the planet. New CO2 restrictions on poor countries will prevent them from building coal fired power stations, having electricity and leave poor folk desperate poverty living in huts while they continue breath in the smoke from cooking fires.

    Maybe it’s time for more Rush Limbaugh inspired rude comments to shake up the complacent politically correct developed world and challenge the madness.

  196. David L Morris (16:38:48)
    “I happen to be a centre leaning, liberal atheistic skeptic. This is pretty reasonable in Australia. Not so much in the USA I gather, where the centre is the left, a liberal is a communist; and an atheist, well I can’t even begin to imagine what Rush and the rest might want to do or say about that.”

    David your post should be repeated here, as I’ve done now. For me that would be the quote of the week.

    By the way, this is not just true for Australia but also for most of the European countries. The US is pretty unique in this respect.

  197. I think Limbaugh’s analogue is as tasteless as the AGW alarmists’ use of the term “deniers”.

  198. The reason that this blog is the best science blog is because it allows all comments and views to be expressed. It is largely self regulating as to good manners and respect for each other. Anthony is right. Personal attacks are always wrong. Consider this example.
    Some years ago in business, my eldest son, had asked for some engineering data from another firm to prove a solution that they were offering. He received a written personal attack and he brought it to me for advice. I simply smiled and advised that he had won the argument. I advised him to reply politely, noting the writer’s comments, and asking for him to answer the original question.

    In the end truth will out, it is hard sometimes not to rail against the perceived stupidity of some folk, but stick to the real issues not the messenger.

  199. It’s my fault, actually. I’ve been known to say that some of these enviro-freaks truly do hate mankind and would like to see us wiped off the face of the Earth. And that is a truth, regardless of what crap you want to put on Rush. I would invite them to do themselves in, first. And then, later, we won’t follow them.

    So, go ahead and trample my 1st Amendment. The White House is trying to, as well as other parts of the government, such as the FCC. I should change that to the Mao CC.

  200. …. Hoi Polloi (02:29:49) :
    It’s time Limbaugh goes back to his pills, again. The man is an utter disgrace for human being and deserved to be either euthanised or at least put away in a secure surrounding. ….
    ———-
    Exhibit A for leftist intolerance. I can’t see too much respect for human life here.

    I agree that this issue has gone well past the purely scientific stage, if it was ever there when the IPCC was specifically set up to find a human cause for global warming. Can anyone doubt that the last thing the alarmists are interested in is the science when they use every trick in the book, up to and including outright fraud, to shore up their position and suppress any opposition or even open debate?

    Just in my own experience, people have been so inundated by the propaganda that they regurgitate it by rote. When I make a few points about rising CO2 and falling temperatures, normal variability, previous warm periods etc. they generally don’t even make an attempt to refute it. They brush it aside with “but the objective of sustainability and energy efficiency is good” as if we were children being lied to for our own good and that made it all right. No attempt to think it through to its logical conclusion.

    Nothing is more important than to get the truth out. Love him or hate him, Rush makes people think.

  201. maybe Rush was a bit over the top, but after listeing an interview to ann ehrlich, i am not too sure

    you can find the mp3 of the interview on my server at gianmarco dot dyndns dot org slash varie slash population.mp3

    scary stuff.

  202. Look, Rush is not posting on WUWT, so what business is it of you to say whether he should apologise or not?

    Some people come to sites like this and Climate Audit to learn that the debate is not settled, to learn of the subtleties of climate science. Unfortunately, there is a section of society who don’t come to sites like this, people with a poor education and poor ability to juggle complex issues of causality, people whose sole input on climate change is what is rammed down their throats by the likes of Gore and his ilk. These people respond to the brutal “spade is a spade” comments by people like Rush.

  203. Watts… you are in the wrong here.

    Revkin wrote up a glowing Smil interview 2 days ago where Smil proposes people limit their lives to their local area, and not travel. People should limit their horizons and live like Middle Age serfs who never left the valley of their fief.

    The logical corollary? Help even more than the serf, and stop breathing so as to generate even less CO2!

  204. I will be the one of the few that will defend Rush Limbaugh. And I don’t believe Andy is for eliminating children, either. What people like Rush are doing is sounding an alarm. One could argue that all Rivkin was doing was furthering a civil debate on the effects of population and AGW. Yet, the reality of this debate is very suspect. First of all, population growth isn’t the problem. The data is right there for all to see. Almost all of the G20 nations (those with the most wealth) have rapidly aging populations. Most of these nations have fertility rates below 1.8 children/female. CO2 concentrations amongst these nations is dependent upon industrial and commerical actvity. With fewer young people, and more wealth going to caring for its aging populations, the G20 nations will surely see a drop in future industrial activity. The IPCC scenarios and the attendent debates are strawmen.

    But I suspect what Limbaugh takes offense to, is the subtle implications of this debate. China, which has had a 1 child law for 3 decade, brutally opresses mothers who do not toe the line. While Rivkin et als debate in the abstract, the policy outcome of this debate is there for all to see. There is also something very pernicious about framing the debate in such a way as to view people (in this case children) as a form of enviormental pollution. And as usual, the people who take part in the debate exempt themselves.

  205. Revkin owes us an apology for suggesting there are too many people and some should die to relieve the planet. Since it is his suggestion he should certainly step up and follow his suggestion to it’s logical conclusion. Who does Revkin want to die first? Conservatives? Revkin and Erlich are wrong. Revkin is a propagandist like the goracle and is dishonest or woefully misled.

    Who is Revkin suggesting should die? Most of the planet? He should step up and give us an example.

  206. As Rush says, “Illustrating absurdity with absurdity”. I have listened to Rush for almost 20 years and do not think that he actually suggested that someone actually kill them self.

  207. Not to belabor the point, but Anthony, you should be aware that Media Matters is a left-wing web site, paid for by George Soros, dedicated to pulling quotes out of context in order to demonize conservatives. You fell into that trap.

    You should have read Rush’s whole monologue before going off and demanding he apologize. If you had, you would have seen that there was no similarity between the person who told you to sit in the garage with the car running (a nasty personal attack), and Rush’s lengthy discussion of the radical environmental movement’s vile prescriptions for humanity. Revkin’s name came up because he was the source, and the context was clearly “if you believe this stuff, why not you first?”

    Well, maybe this thread will come to Rush’s attention and he’ll mention it today. Getting WUWT in front of 20 million listeners won’t hurt—if Rush doesn’t mistake it for a pro-AGW blog. I suggest you ask Roy Spencer to make sure Rush understands where you’re coming from, and why you took umbrage. He has Rush’s private email address.

    /Mr Lynn

  208. Anthony, im sorry but your latest post is still off the mark. There is no high road to take here. Unless you listen to the show, please don’t comment on it. Rush’s monologues are several times longer than conversations with callers, and the typical caller transcript is about 5 times longer than the snippet you posted.

    The context of rush’s comments can sometimes extend for an entire half hour and routinely exceed fifteen minutes of both text and context. Rush did in no way say “I hope you kill yourself”, he was telling Revkin to lead by example as part of an even larger point. So this snippet was doubly out of context, the context of the quoted comment exceeded the length of the quote vastly and that context was part of a larger context of a bigger argument.

    For those of you trying to find moral equivalence (( “the left, AGW, etc does it! rush can do it!” )), that’s incorrect, two wrongs don’t make a right, and surrenders to the premise that Rush committed a wrong in the first place.

    Thirdly, there was no reason to even bring this up in this venue, Rush used absolutely no empirical evidence and wasn’t discussing the science in the normative way i appreciate it being discussed here, it was a philosophical/political discussion. The moral of the story is don’t jump to conclusions based on transcripts posted by someones political enemies. This is where most people get Rush absolutely wrong. Rush mostly discusses the philosophy of the things he’s talking about, while others try to find empirical things wrong with what he’s saying, and that entirely misses the point. If you want empirical discussions about the subjects, talk to Walter E. Williams or Thomas Sowell.

    This is the same kind of reporting that led to the repeating of utterly fabricated quotes that cost rush his NFL position. I’ll say again, please research thoroughly subjects about such divisive public figures, or actually tune in, you don’t need a decoder.

  209. Limbaugh should apologize for confronting a warmist chief propagandist to his own logic? What a joke !
    He should do so when those who have trivialized the holocaust by equalling coal trains to “death trains” and by calling skeptics “deniers” (especially when one of the most prominent skeptic, Lindzen is a Jew who has his family members gased) have apologized before.

  210. I understand the frustration some here, including Anthony, feel when comments by those like Rush seem to cross the line. It can be “off putting” to folks who maybe are new to the whole AGW debate, or those who may be on the fence.

    On the other hand, consider who actually hears, or sees in a transcript, Rush’s comments the vast majority of the time: his own listening audience. Thats it!
    But if he makes an, arguably, controversial comment, it tends to get played or shown in a lot of the MSM. A different audience now has an “inflammatory” remark to ponder from Rush’s side of the argument to counter the “inflammatory” remarks from the AGW side. These types of comments, unfortunately, are what the average American will probably use to decide which “side” they are on. I don’t think most of these folks understand or even care about the actual science, so for them arguing the science is pointless.
    These are the people, IMHO, that Rush may be targetting. He knows that he will have more people exposed to his argument if his comments are inflammatory enough.

  211. I wonder, when Mr Revkin is so concerned about the USA population growth, why he doesn’t tackle the immigration question first?
    It’s the same like in the UK – here is also the no-child or 1-child option recommended but its proponents don’t say anything about limiting immigration first. What’s the point of limiting families of people already in, when at the same time the population deficit is canceled by people streaming from abroad?

  212. savethesharks (22:18:17) :

    I’ve heard enough clips of Rush to know that that’s not a universal style of show to listen to.
    There are other styles that bear the same message in a manner I’m more comfortable with.
    That’s what I like about America. There’s enough freedom of speech to insure (presently) that you can hear the message you believe in delivered in a way you agree with.
    The problem begins with one-upmanship.
    After a while, you cannot remember what the original premise was, and esclation soon finds the sides of a mudpit to descend into.
    So, if Rush Limbaugh is not your style, then who would you rather be getting the message from? (That’s not directed at you, Chris, it’s an open question).

  213. If wasn’t for people like Rush, the AGW agenda would have been implmented long ago, and this website would today be irrelevant.

  214. We should fact-check these reports the same way CNN fact-checks SNL sketches.

    I often post satiric messages about the only way to save the planet is to create a computer system that ‘randomly’ selects people for ‘voluntary’ termination. This system would weigh several factors in determining an individual’s probability of being selected. The important people — elected officials, bureaucrats and people with the ‘right’ politics–would have a near-zero chance of being selected. After ‘voluntarily’ reporting to a suicide booth for mandatory termination, the remains would be processed into food, ala ‘Soylent Green.’

    Most people recognize this as satire. Some don’t. I’m not actually advocating this, but trying to illuminate the mindset of some of these radical greens.

    However, it’s wrong to use a real person’s name when making a statements like this. If Rush actually said it, he should apologize.

  215. Anthony, I love your site and I will continue to return on a daily basis to read interesting scientific articles, but I admit that I find it perplexing that you view Rush’s comments as controversial, much less requiring an apology. Perhaps I have simply been desensitized to callous discourse and am therefore blind to the problem, but the point of Rush’s commentary seems clear: simply to call out hypocrisy while illustrating the problems of a particular solution by applying it to those individuals who support it but seemingly only wish to apply it to others (you could view this as a very crude application of Kant’s categorical imperative).

    If someone believes that humans are a severe detriment to the survival of life on Earth and that reducing this population is an integral means of avoiding further disaster, then they should be willing to be the first to execute (no pun intended) such a plan themselves before imposing it on others. Perhaps Revkin does not actually believe this and was only arguing the potential benefits of population control in the abstract, in which case he was probably a poor choice to single out, but in either case, Rush was not desiring Revkin to drop dead. In fact, as another poster pointed out, the fact that Rush rejects both premises (global warming and problematic over population), means he has no desire to see anyone kill themselves, just that if you do believe this, you should be willing to entertain such a step.

    I think this is pretty clear, so my intent is not to insult your intelligence by beating a dead horse, but your responses to both Jim (16:57:41) “But it is also wrong to fall to the level of debate where we wish death on the other person publicly” and JT (17:18:35) “While she couldn’t even get the chemical compound right, it was then that I chose not to reply in kind by wishing death on my opponent” seem to indicate that you took Rush’s comment as a death wish and missed the point?

  216. Anyone here remember Prince Phillip wishing for a virus that would wipe out most of humanity as a way of saving the earth and the environment for the royals? Usually, the ones who wish to change things catastrophically for the rest of us, are the ones who are usually wealthy enough to survive most hardships.

  217. There’s a huge ideological conflict going on in the USA. Does anyone really believe it’s going to be resolved diplomatically / peacefully? I don’t think so.

    “Give me Liberty, or give me death!”

    Rush and the rest of us aren’t the ones who are running around wanting to ball and chain society. Are we to just sit there and take it?

    “Those who are willing to surrender liberty for a little security deserve neither.”

  218. I read about 100 comments and then skipped ot the end.

    I was expecting someone to post a link to where Revkin said that he personally believes that population should be controlled, but I didn’t see it.

    If it exists, can someone post a link.

    To be clear, a link to where Revkin quotes someone who says that, does not mean that he Revkin believes it.

    On a more general point, I have read some of Revkin’s more recent stuff and I believe he is relatively open to new ideas. Rather than demonising him with juvenile attacks, I think it would be better to take Anthony’s high road approach and argue the science.

    As you may know, Revkin recently posted on Yamal. He gave over most of the post to a direct transcript of an email from Steve McIntyre. Following this I counted the ratings submitted by readers on subsequent comments. The comments were running 3 to 2 in favour of Pro Steve McIntyre comments.

    Revkin and his readers are the people we need to convince, not alienate.

  219. I think this is a case where taste depends on the tone of the suggestion. If it is jocular, teasing and mocking that is OK. If the statement is more militant and bitter, it is less classly and maybe offensive to some people.

  220. Rush is fighting dirty against dirty left gutter fighters. This is not a battle that the right started, not is likely that the left will moderate its tactics.

    Rush will not win the fight by turning the other cheek. When his opponent chooses the battleground and the rules of engagement Rush will only win by being better at it than his enemy.

  221. I cringe reading the comments section whenever political ideology is brought up on this site. It’s one reason I vastly prefer Steve M’s site to WUWT. It’s says out of religion and politics.

    The reason? I’m socially liberal. I currently live in Massachusetts. I’m not a democrat, but rather independent. I am an environmentalist – meaning I care about real pollution. Ground water issues, particulate issues etc, but have never bought into the whole AGW garbage.

    I also happen to be fiscally conservative – reduce government spending. Kill pet projects. However liberal – No money to fight in Iraq, fix broken education system (and not simply by throwing more money at it). Fix America’s infrastructure.

    Labeling people, mudslinging, stooping to the level of “the other side” does no one any good and isolates people like me. AGW isn’t a liberal versus democrat issue. It’s only been hijacked by the Republican party. Why is that wrong? Because you need people like me to speak out – and I refuse to do so if you’ve wrapped up being a skeptic into the same group that also promotes some very radical religious ideologies, creationism etc.

    Just like the democrats isolated me when they wrapped up being a democrat into meaning that I have to accept AGW, corrupt unions, and out of control spending.

    Anthony – please, I beg you….keep to the science.

    AJ

  222. Anthony, If you’re demanding an apology from Mr. Limbaugh, then you had better demand the same thing from Steve Milloy over at Junkscience.com. From that site today:

    “Andy seems to lack the courage of his convictions since he has claimed overpopulation to be the world’s greatest threat repeatedly but now says he is not endorsing population reduction or control, merely being willfully provocative. We’ve crossed keyboards with Andy a few times on this point and our position remains the same: if you are so concerned about too many people Andy, feel free to step off the planet any time, mate.

    My opinion of Revkin has changed over time. I used to think he was naïve but harmless. Now I think of him as a closet people-hater.

    I find myself impressed — just not favorably.”

    And if you can’t understand the “theater of the absurd” that Mr. Limbaugh uses for emphasis, I suggest you listen a little more to him to figure it out.

  223. No apology is required. The constant demands from (primarily) the left of the political spectrum for “apologies” are nothing more than a bully tactic that is used when they are losing an argument.

  224. I suspect that Rush was suggesting to Mr. Revkin that if he is so concerned about population, he should offer to remove himself from the game. Which contradicts his analogy to Jihadists who convince kids to carry their bombs.

    Don’t forget, Rush acknowledges he’s merely an entertainer operating with fully “Half my brain tied behind my back. Just to make it fair.”

  225. To really understand what Rush and other bloggers on the right and left are doing you have to understand the role of agonism in public discourse. Deborah Tannen has a lot to say on the subject of agonism. See The Argument Culture: Moving From Debate to Dialogue. by Deborah Tannen

  226. Don S. (20:51:31) :
    We have a president (and 32 Czars) who are intently destroying a nation of laws and establishing a nation of cults, and this blog still counsels civil discourse. By what law will you enforce your intent.

    My position also. How do you debate with an irrational fanatic?

  227. Hoo boy, saying rush limblah is in bad taste is a waste of breath. The fact that such worthlessness continues to get nationally syndicated airtime exposes the true problem facing America. I pity (wholeheartedly) the ignorance that allows his type (hype) to continue. And continue they will, for the masses have lost all ability to discern for the themselves the difference between truth and lies. The lies will continue.

    For the record, I despise all things “liberal” in the modern definition. You will find no “left” nor “right” stains upon me. I hate all lies equally! This whole left/right nonsense is at the root of the entire problem.

  228. Reductio ad absurdum is completely valid rhetoric. Rush is not wishing death upon Revkin.

    Don’t be commenting on what you do not understand, or interfering in arguments that do not concern you. Revkin is an adult and does not need your protection. Getting involved in this dispute drags this website significantly away from its science mission.

  229. While I agree that we need less hostility in the world (today, especially), I see nothing wrong with telling a lethal philosophy to either come clean or take a short walk off a long pier. That is comepletely within the bounds of rationality, along the lines of telling a (s)nazi that if what they believe is so right… why not kill yourself, go before God and demand your reward? And they would probably sneer and shoot you rather than themselves.

    My point is, Rush (for the record, I’m not a fan of his) was just challenging their faith and the fallout from this will only prove what the whole greenie movement is all about. It’s not “stooping to their level”. It’s stirring them up, to further reveal themselves for what they are. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes. If debate makes them madder, then what harm can ruffling their feathers do?

    That said, I would most certainly rather have the hard-core greens just come clean and the soft greens listen to the other side. It would just be soooo much better that way, for eveyone. Heck, I’d even forgive Al Gore for all the deceit and propagand and the resulting harms such things have caused, if he were to just come clean. But until they wake up from their stupor or give up their hard-line stance… I cannot value that which refuses to value itself.

  230. There ARE enviros who think humans are a virus on the planet’s surface and should die. Everyone except themselves or like-minded people.

  231. Anthony Watt, the host of this blog, regularly censors personal attacks and extreme language. His criticism of Rush Limbaugh is consistent with that long standing and well known policy.

    WUWT has been and will be popular while it sticks to polite discussion of the facts. Off base theories are welcome, off base jibes distract.

  232. Oh the humanity!

    I love this site for its unmatched scientific analysis. But I really believe folks here seem to be REALLY a bit too thin skinned.

    As a listener of Rush for 20 years this was not anything to be taken at face value. Rush likes to point our absurdity by being absurd. He says this himself time and again.

    Rush has done more than any other outlet….(INCLUDING Wattsupwiththat) to unmask to hoax of AGW and its cult like following.

    If anyone is offended by a comical perspective on the absurdity of AGW and its followers then you have a problem with perspective and insight.

    To feign outrage or moral indignation about a point made in a humorous way says more about this site than it does Rush.

    Which leads me to a larger point. I sometimes have my words snipped here because they are deemed offensive. Fine.

    But really, what power do I have to affect any of your lives? I cannot tax your industry out of business. I cannot ruin your livelyhood. No, only the government can do that.

    Today we find that our government is lying to us about the most simplest of things….the tempurature.

    The government and others are caught cooking the climate books and perverting science. And they use these lies to justify an economy killing regime of lowering carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    The government is one senate vote away from taxing us based on a LIE.
    The government is one senate vote away from the proposition that higher taxes = lower planet tempurature. And everyone involed in this scheme knows it is a lie. That is what is really offensive.

    So excuse rational individuals like Rush & myself who call a liar a liar. Folks on this site should be challenged when their positions are shown to be lies.

    And don’t give me this crap that we should all be gentile little lambs and to curb our animosity to lies when we are being led to slaughter based on these lies. That is what I find truely offensive. The hoax and lies of AGW are what is offensive to the sensibilities of anyone even remotely interested in the truth.

    If the NYTs Revkin posts something absurd then whats up with not calling him out on it? These are not merely technical dissagreements anymore.

    There is a cult like big government pool of people, (no smarter than you or I,) seeking to enslave us to higher taxes and a ruinous energy strategy BASED ON LIES that WILL BE enforced by the point of a government gun.

    But Rush was “mean” to Revkin….Oh! The Humanity!

    phhhhhhft!

  233. I object to ill-informed gobshites of any political stripe, and Limbaugh is an egregious example. Drawing comparisons between Andy Revkin and suicide bomber recruiters is not only crass, it’s plain nuts (as was Hansen’s death train rant).

    Anthony is entirely correct to express his distaste.

  234. Anthony,

    IMO The person would gave you advice on how you should study CO2 owes you an apology. Obviously that was pure low class. Limbaugh on the other hand never suggested that in his opinion Revkin should kill himself, he only pointed out the irony of Revkin’s opinion, that since the planet would be better off with less people, what about him personally? I hope that Revkin comprehended the concept, and gives the whole population control issue a second thought.

    We all agree that in a perfect world, the whole AGW issue should be settled by reasoned debate and scientific facts, but it’s not likely to play out that way. I personally believe that many of the alarmists don’t care about the science, AGW is simply a vehicle to more government control and less personal freedom. A step on the path to socialism (or worse). At the international level, Copenhagen is about promoting the status of the UN, heading toward one world government. It’s awfully important that we are right about the science, but that’s not the real fight taking place.

    It’s a little like the classic western movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”. In this analogy, you are in the role played by Jimmy Stewert, Rush is in role played by John Wayne. You are absolutely right about the way things ought to be, but sadly, right and wrong don’t mean much when it comes down to a fight.

    This whole AGW issue is a fight that must be won, principles are great, but are no excuse for letting the “bad” guys win.

  235. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying??

    As a Psych, I defend Rush. He is NOT telling some one to harm Revkin. He is asking a question. If the planet ranks so high for Revkin, would he sacrifice his life to make it better. I am a pacifist. I served my country as a CO consciencious objector.
    Our country asks men if they are willing to die for freedom and Rush asks if he is willing to sacrifice life for the clean planet.

    When I ask a Marine “why don’t you go sacrifice your life for America?” I do not take it as a death wish. It can be interpreted by code pink as one.

  236. “TomLama (07:29:13) :

    Oh the humanity! ”

    I wouldn’t say Rush has done more, he just has a louder voice.
    Watts up
    IceCap
    Climate Audit
    many more………….. Have done incredible work debunking AGW

  237. “J.K. (07:23:46) :

    There ARE enviros who think humans are a virus on the planet’s surface and should die. Everyone except themselves or like-minded people.”

    That’s the real point Rush was making.

    Envriomental wakcos………… “Do as I say, not as I do.”

  238. No apology required. Rush is on the money as usual. This is always firmly evidenced by the pitch of liberal screaming, the more they squeal the truer Rush’s aim.

  239. Like so many others who have commented, I find Rush’s statements well deserved, even though Revkin is one of the least offensive environmentalists in print.

    Anthony, you seem to be suggesting that it is okay to advocate policy that will cause great misery and death, as long as you don’t suggest that anyone in particular should suffer or die. If, however, you suggest that a specific person advocating such policies should voluntarily take on the consequences (death), then we are ‘crossing the line’.

    There is a scientific battle that needs to be fought with decorum, but there is a cultural battle where decorum is perceived as a weakness. Rush is fighting the cultural battle and is using logic in the process. I can not fault him.

  240. A little bad taste yes, but I can see a point here. I saw the other day a photo of greenpeace or some other bunch of far left anti Climate Change protesters, holding a banner up that read sommething along the lines of “Save the Planet – Kill yourself”. Not exactly endeering me to vote with them. I’ll try & hunt this down.

  241. Revkin’s premise – although he won’t spell it out in so many words – is that the fewer people there are, the healthier the planet will be. Rush did an effective job of bringing this premise out into the light of day by illustrating absurdity. IF it’s true that the world would somehow be “better” with fewer people, then mass suicide would be a logical and altruistic thing to do.

    However, Rush disagrees with both the premise AND that morbid solution. As a conservative, he doesn’t think that people harm the planet, and he would prefer seeing lots of happy, prosperous people.

    You also left out some rather important text that immediately followed the inflammatory quote, where Rush was pointing out the elitist hypocrisy that environmentalist leaders tend to display:

    “See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they’re always for everybody else. You go and limit the number of kids you have. You go drive a Yugo. You go get rid of your big house. You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that. But I, Barack Obama, I’m going to throw big parties every night in the White House, I’m going to bring in Earth, Wind & Fire, I’m going to bring in Charlie Pride … and he’s still living high on the hog with $100-a-pound Kobe beef, throwing all these parties, flying off to Paris, New York, London, for dates with Michelle.”

  242. OK…..so Rush takes on Revkin. And your sensibilities are upset.

    Judging by the diversity of the 240+ comments, the Skeptics’ world would be better off avoiding other bones of contention periphery to the climate debate…or boneheads of contention.

  243. I don’t see why this is news. Population culling is a recurring theme amongst some choice posters at Revkin’s Dot Earth, for at least a couple of years. Andy does not snip these comments, or even (if I remember accurately) berate them. Some think 1B is the right number, while others think 100M is ‘sustainable’, whatever that means. Rush has simply reminded the general public of what is being passed off as intelligent discussion about solutions to the CAGW specter.

    The amazing thing about this is that, in an older post, Andy Revkin linked to a short presentation on global population trends that basically concludes the best way to reduce population growth is to improve living conditions (sanitation, energy, food, education, security, medicines). The reductions in family size almost always follow. Prof. Hans Rosling beautifully shows trends in national populations to demonstrate the conclusion. The link is here-

    http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/

    I have not seen or heard of anyone who promotes population reduction in the name of CAGW, provide leadership by example.

  244. This is generally the end result of most of the extreme environmental activism, the death of thousands and sometimes millions. Whether it be from lack of DDT, socialized medicine, depleting our abilty to produce electricity, or driving up prices through tariffs and trade restrictions. Follow the money and you find people dying if not in this country then in the third world. Rush is right. No apology needed.

  245. Anthony,

    You have missed the point. Rush is a satirist. Going back to Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” the job of the satirist is to lampoon a point of view. Those who take the satirist literally miss the point. Satirists suffer from this all the time. They always risk being attacked by those from their own side of the fence who miss the point, as you did, and also from the other side of the fence, who very much get the point. Satire can be a lonely business. Proof that you missed the point is shown in your attempt to show equivalence with the lady that suggested you should lock yourself in your garage with the car running. That was not a satirical suggestion.

    I don’t find Rush entertaining or very informing and I find that he tends to spin a 1 minute point into a 1 hour show with teasers and just plain wasted time. So I don’t listen to him. But I wouldn’t criticize him for holding a mirror up to a very ugly idea and coming up with an ugly image.

  246. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t do a gardening, sports or cooking program, but a political commentary show in his own sucessful style using absurdities from time to time. And according to the saying, anything goes in politics.Therefore,I don’t believe an apology is necessary. What seems to happen additionally is *one* apology is never enough.I haven’t heard any apologies from those on the “left” issuing apologies for their extreme comments or deeds.

    Since I went to Sunday School in the late ’50’s and early ’60’s, I learned from the nuns that if someone hits you, you turn the other cheek. That being said, if he hits you again, maybe then you can beat the living dayslights out of him.
    The skeptics have been turning the other cheek, now it may be the right time to respond in kind.

  247. Rush deals with the political realities.

    He knows the average citizen is stupider than a box of nails, can’t follow complex discussions, responds to one liners and can easily be pied pipered over a cliff.

    He gets to the point using information that is easy to understand, even for the nails.

    Let Rush address the politicans and Watts address the scientists.

    Serenity now……..

  248. If Revkin said people should be killed to reduce population, then Rush’s comments were appropriate.

    However, if Revkin said people should voluntarily engage in family planning to reduce population, then Rush was over the line.

    If Revkin believes in forced sterilization, as some lefties do, that’s kind of a grey area but I’d say Rush’s comments would be justified in this case also.

  249. In Britain at least there is a strong alliance between militant Islamists and activists on the hard left such as the Greens, Socialists, Respect Party, United Against Fascism (aka Eco-Shariah Now!) and the Stop the War Coalition (aka Bring Back The Taliban)- the last three recieving financial support from Pakistan, Syria and Dubai based businessmen and groups.

  250. P Gosselin (06:32:46) :

    If wasn’t for people like Rush, the AGW agenda would have been implmented long ago, and this website would today be irrelevant.

    Or, maybe not just irrelevant, but unlawful.

    I’m saddened as I read many of the comments on this thread. It is actually depressing that it has come to this. Pointing out the absurdity of the whole “we need to reduce our population” view is a GOOD THING, not something to apologize for.

    The difference is, when I suggest that someone who has never accomplished anything in their lives other than consuming E at raves and vandalizing a power station should take a long walk off a short pier, I’m kidding. When the cAGW fanatics suggest that someone driving too big a vehicle should be herded into a death camp, they’re serious, and they ARE pretty far along the path of making that happen.

  251. Just The Facts Wrote:

    Rush should drop the personal attacks and stick to the facts.

    Impossible. His three hour show would be reduced to twenty minutes at most.

    In the latest rant, Rush says:

    “We don’t even have to talk about getting married. We don’t even have to talk about being a couple. I mean men have no say now, really, in whether a child is born or not, legally I mean”.

    Did Rush just advocate for the dreaded act of abortion?

    “So would a man have any way of benefiting from the carbon credit? A man cannot give birth, women can give birth without a man around, many of them prefer to do so, they work in the Obama administration, too, but that’s another thing.

    Were there no single mothers in the previous administration? Or is he calling women who work in the Obama administration lesbians?

    Anyway, don’t expect an apology from Rush. Even if he did, it would have the qualifier “If I am wrong” inserted somewhere. Rush just wrote a piece in the WSJ complaining that those who attributed a couple of false quotes to him only gave half hearted apologies because they used that qualifier. Of course, it’s only bad if someone else does it.

    PS. Why would a skeptic listen to Rush anyway. He provides his voice to advertise Zycam – a junk science product if there ever was one..

  252. Sorry, on this one I agree with Rush.

    Andy [Revkin]

    Let’s see, 20 years ago he was SCREAMING about the dangers of “genetically modified crops”.

    Evidently he never met Norman Borlaug.

    Sorry, Andy, my best wish for you would be to be transported back to Ireland, circa 1700’s, to find out how dangerous NON-genetically modified
    crops are.

    (Whoops, I am saying I might be wishing you’d starve to death. Not that.
    I think just a few weeks eating grass to survive, losing a few pounds, and learning to APPRECIATE genetically modified food… might help. But then what next? Strap you on a “short leash” next to an “ice house” on Lake of the Woods in MN, say around Dec. 20th? Give you enough fuel to keep moderately warm for a MONTH..let you fish for your food..and then on Jan 20th, around -45 F, come and talk GLOBAL WARMING to you?)

    Hugoson

  253. Anyone who advocates policies to reduce the world population by any means other than voluntary family planing is calling for the killing, by one means or another, of huge numbers of human beings. If Revkin advocates that, no matter how much his words are couched in academic terms, and no matter how polite he may be on a personal basis, then any action needed to prevent such policies from being implemented is legitimate.

    I see nothing to criticize in Rush’s words, unless he misstated what Revkin advocates. If Revkin advocates death for people for the sole reason that he thinks there are too many of them (us), then he is calling for mass murder. If that is the case, any offense at anything Rush may have said is grotesquely misplaced.

    Anthony, whether Rush is right or wrong, I see no need for you to apologize on his behalf. Why did you feel the need?

  254. Good for ratings. Rush is an entertainer. I bet he voted for Obama simply to make sure he was president so Rush could have more listeners to get all angry like.

    As for Revkin, he is right when he says there are too many people on this earth.

    Finite amount of resources can only support a finite population. I am not advocating killing anyone, but people are going to be dying. That’s just the way it is.

    Water should be getting more attention than it does in the media.

  255. Sorry, on this one I agree with Rush.

    Andy [Revkin]

    Let’s see, 20 years ago he was SCREAMING about the dangers of “genetically modified crops”.

    Refeerence / link please.

  256. Sonic Frog
    You have a strange way of interpreting what he said in that quote
    “We don’t even have to talk about getting married. We don’t even have to talk about being a couple. I mean men have no say now, really, in whether a child is born or not, legally I mean”.

    He means if a male gets a woman pregnant,he has no say if that baby is born or not.How is that advocating abortion?
    A statement from him that I agree with,as I think the father should have a say in whether his child is born or not,I do not agree with his next statement you quoted,that’s his faith talking.Maybe single mothers would be on Revkin’s list for population control,assuming he is a believer in population control.He did quote from a population control article in his blog,so I think he does favour it,just not game enough to say it outright.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=55667

    Revkin
    “So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit–If we’re going to become carbon-centric–for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three,” said Revkin. “And obviously it’s just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”

  257. Benjamin P. (10:09:49) : ” As for Revkin, he is right when he says there are too many people on this earth. Finite amount of resources can only support a finite population. I am not advocating killing anyone, but people are going to be dying. That’s just the way it is. ”

    Well excuse me if I don’t See The Light, but finite population (last I checked, approx 7 billion is a finite number), much in the way of untapped resources… We really don’t even need to be talking about slowing down, let alone whittling down.

    Fine and alright if that’s what you personally believe and live by, but that right doesn’t extend to anyone the right to pass it off as gosspel, what sets the basis of justified violations of free will. If all the people in the world are robbing you, prove the harm they have caused to you in a court of law. If you’ve no loss to show from all this “overpopulation”, then don’t complain until you do have a suffucient case.

    For all the flaws in today’s, you and I and many others… never had it quite so good. One would think you would have cause to celebrate and invite those in the world who must unjustly endure the kick-to-the-groin of “Ahhh!!! the world is overcrowded!!!” over-conservationism to share in the fruits of modern living. But some are never going to be happy enough, I guess. They’d rather policy prevented that rise (like a bunch of whiny ingrates that they are).

    And btw, the reduced kid-count from prosperity has little to do with any conscientious decision to save the planet. Kids used to be a way to make sure that…

    A) The blood-line survived. The world used to be so much more brutal, especially to kids. Better to have too much than too little, ie, just to be sure.

    B) So that parents had enough to rely on in their old age, to have someone to take care of them when they got old.

    Economics, you see, not consideration of mathematics that NO ONE can yet be certain of. If it were for the latter reason, people would not have fewer children in their _greater consumption_ and richer lives. They would have remained mired in the pre-industrial ways of life, just with fewer children.

  258. I completely disagree with you. I do not believe that what Rush said was in bad taste, over-the-line, or that an apology is needed. His comment is obvious irony. IF Revkin is going to be consistent, then what Rush said IS precisely what he should do. But was Rush actually encouraging Revkin to commit suicide? Absolutely not. How could you possibly think he was suggesting such a thing? Irony is a core element of good humor. And Rush is a very, very fun (but insightful) man. Keep it up, Rush!

  259. .He did quote from a population control article in his blog,so I think he does favour it,just not game enough to say it outright.

    Oh come on. All of us who blog have quoted or provided links from ALL SORTS of sites, from mundane, to the absurd, and have conducted all sorts of thought experiments. Those quotes or links have absolutely NO bearing on what I might ACTUALLY think about a subject. The insinuation that it does is, to me, just as dangerous to free thought as the reimplementation of the fairness doctrine would be to free thought on talk radio, such as it is.

  260. Lead by example. That’s the principle painfully absent from those foisting elite liberal agendas. Does Al Gore ever do just ‘one thing’ to lower his ‘carbon footprint’? Of course not; he’s an elitist who believes that he was ordained to be exempt from from following his own advice. With Leona Helmsley arrogance he demands that we ‘little people’ have to cut CO2 – not him, (cuz he sells carbon credits to himself!).

    Senator Inhofe challenged Al Gore to pledge to just lower his energy use to that of an average US citizen, (still quite a bit by world standards); Gore refuses to do it. Should Inhofe apologize to Gore for suggesting that Gore should ‘suffer’ by leading by example and lowering his standard of living? Not any more than Rush should apologize to Revkin for suggesting that Revkin lead by example which is at the core of Rush’s whole point – THEY NEVER DO.

  261. “While she couldn’t even get the chemical compound right, it was then that I chose not to reply in kind by wishing death on my opponents.”

    I think that’s great, and just the kind of derisible response one would want to elicit from the other camp. CO2 is the thing to be feared from tailpipe emissions – what a maroon!

    Look, this is a street fight, not a friendly sparring match. Play by Marquess of Queensbury rules, and you will lose.

  262. Raven (00:21:19) :

    J. Peden (00:14:35) asks:
    “What’s the problem?”

    The problem is Revkin is least biased of MSM journalists out there and he is the most willing to let sceptics express their views. He is not a AGW dogmatist like many other journalists and that makes Rush’s characterization of Revkin unfair.

    If he had gone after a more deserving target like Krugman then I would see your point.

    Well as for me, I wouldn’t waste my time on Krugman. He’s already a bona fide gonner. On the other hand, I see challenging Revkin to follow his own rules as only fair – to Revkin, especially since he has indeed been rather tolerant. But if it turns out that Revkin can’t fathom even these simple points, I think it’s fair for me to conclude that his blog is not worth reading, and that his only use will probably be as an example of how not to proceed in life, just like Krugman is.

  263. Let me retreat a little. Not you. This site would find hyperbolic rhetoric on the part of the proprietors counterproductive. But, Limbaugh has a niche, which is more than compensated on the other side, and his rhetoric is suited for his milieu.

  264. “Play by Marquess of Queensbury rules, and you will lose.”

    I beg to differ. This entire AGW fiasco is going to have to go through all of the necessary phases for a fad or fashion to die. This process cannot be hastened, least of all by invective and insults.

    It is incumbent upon those who do not believe in the basic tenets of the AGW theories to rise above the name-calling and ad hominem criticisms used by their opponents. The ladies and gentlemen (and those titles encompass all of the expected ‘civilised’ behaviours of those so called) of the “denier” camp must, at all costs, refuse to lower their standards to those whom they oppose.

    It is only by retaining and displaying polite, courteous and civil behaviour combined with a determination to retain the basic, unshakeable tenets of real scientific discourse that the so-called “deniers” are going to win the day.

    It is nice to see that WUWT is leading the way in this regard.

    Anthony, I praise your regard for the maintenance of civilised and scientific discourse.

  265. @Przemysław Pawełczyk (02:20:45) :
    (…)
    REPLY: I think you are confusing “decorum” with “leftist bias”. – Anthony

    Mr. Watts
    Maybe. I warned you how easy it is to lose a focus nowadays. I addressed this issue in my comments to your posts:
    1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/28/met-office-supercomputer-a-megawatt-here-a-megawatt-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-real-carbon-pollution/
    2) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/

    I wrote my words before reading Messes Kevin S (00:03:08) : and paullm (01:22:21) : It seams to me that it is you who stepped over the line. Sad.

    Best Regards

  266. Perhaps, in addition to “Wattsupwiththat”, you need a companion blog, entitled, “Wattsupwiththem“…

  267. Anthony, love ya. Keep doing what you’re doing here and ignore the politics involved. It serves no useful purpose to get into the mud. Either it’s so or it isn’t. Stay on topic- either the planet is heating up or not, period.

    Let’s keep this blog on AGW, and when that’s defeated we can go on to beat the commies on other subjects, and in detail.

  268. Right now, there is a serious effort from some on the left to shut down Rush (and other conservative commentators). Some folks in the mainstream media have even recently spread around a made-up quote falsely attributed to Rush. Their effort endangers freedom of speech, and could ultimately endanger WUWT. So while I think Rush’s comments may have been over the top, I don’t think it serves WUWT’s purposes to add fuel to the “hush Rush” fires. I know you were not advocating Rush be shut down. However, since he’s already under fire, it would be better to leave Rush alone.

  269. “The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?” – Rush Limbaugh

    When taken in context, the last sentence obviously has a figurative meaning and can be paraphrased: Practice what you preach.

    When removed from context the phrase “Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?” has an entirely different and literal meaning.

    Do we really want to throw a staunch, aggressive, protagonist of truth, about the AGW hoax, “under-the-bus” for a minor infraction of our high standards.

  270. Not sure if it was already covered in the above 300+ posts – I am unable to read them all, but Revkin spoke about birth control – as if people don’t already have plenty of access to the many different available methods, if they chose to use them. However he also spoke about carbon credits issued such that only one child per family would be permitted – at what cost for having more . . . who knows. He said this, among other things, under the disclaimer that these were not proposals – just a “thought experiment.” However it is clear that Revkin believes humans are ruining the planet, and populations and population growth should be limited.

    So in the end, for people like Revkin, Schneider, Erlich, Holdren, etc. that believe that humans are so bad for the planet and its environment, perhaps they should consider making the ultimate sacrifice themselves, for the planet’s benefit of course, before they start suggesting – or worse – dictating – family planning, end of life care and other lifestyle changes to everyone else.

    These people are somewhat like the Jihadists Limbaugh compared them to : never sacrificing themselves – always getting others to do it; these people would never surrender their large homes or SUV’s or limit their own travel or recreation, because, well… they’re part of the “elite and influential class,” leading the way for everyone else, and as such they can’t be expected to make the same sacrifices the masses have to endure.

    Was Limbaugh over the top ? Perhaps. But not to a level that would warrant an apology. The statement was used to illustrate the hypocrisy of Revkin’s position, and indeed, of these people in general. It was by no means a threat.

    Anthony, I’m a bit surprised you would have raised this incident at all in your forum; perhaps I missed it, but I don’t believe you brought the the fore the similar situation a couple of weeks previous where Chris Matthews said on his program that he wished someone would kill Rush Limbaugh. While Limbaugh was making attempting to illustrate a point, in context, Matthews’ statement was no such thing, and could even be taken as an incitement to violence. Any reason why you picked up Limbaugh’s attack and not Matthews’ ?

  271. Anthony, you stated that Rush was wrong because it was not conducive to rational debate. You are wrong, the leaders on the other side are not interested in rational debate nor science but only power and avg is the means to power. You could have found out that the temperature measuring stations had electric blankets on them which caused higher readings and it would not have made one bit of difference to them because they only want a means to power. You have to know what the opposition is about and what the goal is- power and control: redundant.

  272. Partington:

    Please, if you absolutely must read deltoid’s “take” on ddt then also read the official WHO statement which, largely as you expect, is different:

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html

    I don’t think there is that much difference. There is a little argument around the edges concerning how much of a policy shift that 2006 WHO announcement really represented (see, e.g., here http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/did_who_change_its_ddt_policy.php and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/politically_based_medicine_at.php ) and a little disagreement about what the right balance should be between using DDT for indoor spraying and using other measures like bednets, but overall there is fairly broad agreement. (As that WHO press release notes, Environmental Defense and Sierra Club currently endorse the indoor use of DDT for malaria control.)

  273. Benjamin,

    Our untapped resources? We are finding more and more all the time I suppose? As if the earth is just continuously producing them at the rate we use them?

    Sorry, I am not trying to preach anything beyond the simple observation that on the earth there are a finite amount of resources. Those resources can only support a finite population. I am not sure if that number is 7, 8, 10, 15 billion, but at some time in humanity’s future we will reach a point were population growth will be unable to happen.

    That’s just the way it is.

    As I said, I am not advocating killing of anyone. Nor am I advocating people stop reproducing. In fact, my wife and I are trying right now.

    I think you read WAY too much into my simple observation, but thanks for you impassioned reply.

    Benjamin P.

  274. Jack Green (16:57:29) :

    I don’t think Rush Limbaugh stepped over any line that you have drawn. These people truly believe that there are too many people in the world and that we need to reduce the population to save the planet. They are that bold and wacko in their beliefs. It justifies abortion, planned parenthood, and all the crazy AGW stuff. Read some of the quotes from Revkin and think about it.

    Jack, my friend, you are engaging in painting with a pretty broad (and uninformed) brush here. You have a right to think that birth control and planned parent are wrong. But the fact is that most rational people don’t agree with you — moreover, the meme that environmentalists want to reduce population through genocide and similar means is getting a bit worn around the edges.

    Most people do understand that the world is overpopulated according to any rational understanding. Critical ecosystem elements such as, in my local backyard, the Chesapeake bay, have been weakened by our abuse of local environments. There are too many people, too many houses, and too little proper understanding and planning for managing our relationships with fragile ecosystems. This is true, even if AGW is a load of baloney.

    I would have to concur with Anthony that Rush Limbaugh, in this instance like so many other, is a bloviating windbag whose rhetoric — unlike that of the informed, factual, credible arguments one can read on Anthony’s site — does very little indeed but incite misunderstanding.

  275. Rbateman: “So, if Rush Limbaugh is not your style, then who would you rather be getting the message from? (That’s not directed at you, Chris, it’s an open question).”

    Well… I listen to you, for starters.

    Seriously…I like your logical mind and you don’t go too much over the top….yet you keep one *****ng edge on what you are saying.

    Rush has made ALOT of money doing what he does…more power to him. Hey I even listen to him occasionally.

    But he has no edge.

    He’s pop-culture at best…and the jury is out if he is actually doing any good…or making things worse.

    Hats off to Anthony for creating a scientific site with a definite EDGE here.

    May the truth win out.

    HEY that is what the Scientific Method is all about, right??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  276. @psi, and others who state the planet is overpopulated.

    Baloney. That is as blunt as I can be without getting obscene.

    I have lived in sparsely populated areas, average areas, and densely populated areas. There is absolutely no rational basis to believe that the world cannot support easily double the current population. The key is reliable energy, nothing more. Witness Japan, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. Witness India, with roughly the same land mass as the USA, Australia, China, or Brazil, but having four times the population of the USA.

    As E.M.Smith wrote on his http://www.chiefio.wordpress.com blog, there is no shortage of “stuff” as he calls it. Energy also is in overwhelming supply, and with that we can produce any quantities of anything we require, whether it is food, shelter, garments, fresh water, metals, building materials, anything. Unfortunately, energy cannot “fix stupid,” to quote a popular humorist in the USA, Ron White.

    Any perceived shortage of energy is strictly a matter of restricted access to known deposits of fossil fuels – especially petroleum, or misguided political policies. The latter is evidenced by the “energy shortage” created by President Jimmy Carter during the 1970s. There was no shortage of energy, as subsequent events proved.

    Those who advocate measures to control (reduce) human population on the grounds that “the earth cannot support” that many people are horribly misinformed, or deliberately lying.

  277. TW (06:22:15) :
    229 Responses. And what did we learn?

    We have learned that you have nothing to say.

    As the White House increases it’s attempt to make opposing views not credible, those voices have to get louder just to be heard.

  278. rush limbaugh does overstep the line quite a bit, and he has to be responsible for what he says to millions of people, but most of the time he’s on target. not this time, though.

  279. Anthony:
    Thanks for your stimulus package. I suspect you didn’t expect the heavy response when you tossed this sparkler on the fire. I spent a couple hours reading through the many posts. It ain’t hard science, but it sure are a nice mix of Philosophy and Practical Social Psychology. We had a lot of insightful postings (and a few illustrative liberal ad hominems.).
    You obviously do not listen to Rush. Don’t start! You might lose needed concentration three hours a day. You have far more important things to do managing and monitoring this site for us.
    The many pro-Rush posters have explained his views and methods well. (I’m a late-comer. I didn’t find him until ’91, don’t listen daily, but catch enough to understand his subtleties [try to find a liberal who thinks he is subtle!]) You can’t understand his views, all he says, with five-second snippets from three hour shows. Strangely, his format seems built to encourage sound-bite extraction and misinterpretation by liberals.
    The thoughtful pro-Rush responses don’t surprise me. Media demographic studies have found that his is the best educated, best informed (on current social/political issues) and most politically active, of all daytime radio. You, perhaps inadvertently, tapped into the interests of 20 million of the most educated, informed, and active citizens of the U.S.A. The vast majority of them distrust catastrophic AGW advocates.
    I don’t want to play with Venn diagrams, but I think you should be encouraged that you have a significant overlap with Rush’s 90th percentile audience.
    BTW, “Dittohead” doesn’t mean “I agree with you.” Without the long explanation, it means, “Boy, am I glad to find someone on the radio saying what I think!”

  280. Hello Phoenix mattress:

    You wrote: “rush limbaugh does overstep the line quite a bit, and he has to be responsible for what he says to millions of people, but most of the time he’s on target. not this time, though.”

    I heard what rush said and no he does not step over the line quite a bit.

    Rush is correct. People who want population control, or SUV control, or carbon emission control, should follow their own advice and save the rest of us from their pollution. POTUS wants cap and trade — well stop flying all over the world on Air Force One.

    If Al Gore thinks carbon emissions are dangerous, stop flying in private jets and heating/cooling his mansions.

    The environmentalist who believes in AGW should stop driving Prius’ and heating/cooling their homes.

    People who want population control should lead by example.

    That’s my translation of what Rush said.

    But, I have taken the time to listen to the Rush, while most of his critics have not!

    thanks,

    markm

  281. “People who want population control should lead by example.”
    That’s my translation of what Rush said.

    Well then he would have been much better off quoting you. Well said.

    Furthermore, though….there is nothing you or any other poster on here can say to justify his remarks.

    Again….I refer back to the earlier part of this thread:

    “Be careful to not stoop to the level (and thus become) what you despise.”

    This is a really silly point to be arguing, anyways.

    It was said. Water under the bridge.

    Next??

    Back to a few tree rings and a whole universe of faulty climate science….

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  282. What Limbaugh was getting at (I believe) was an attempt to show, as most predominant, the hypocrisy of the econuts.

  283. Roger Sowell,
    Thank you for eschewing the profanity that you might be inclined to utter. I am fully ready to return the favour.
    I’m interested to know if you believe that doubling the population to 27½ billion after we’ve “easily” supported the prior doubling to 13¾ billion would be just as easy and still just a matter of “reliable energy”. How about 55 billion?
    Do you have an opinion about when phosphate would become an issue? Or Potash? Or elbow-room?
    When you say “support” do you mean for 100,000 years?
    I’m really not sure whether this is a matter of principle for you. The vehemence of several previous posters suggests it is for them.
    At the present growth rate, there would be 27 billion in 120 years. I don’t care; I’ll be long dead. I just don’t believe that there’ll be plenty of “stuff” indefinitely. Mostly, I’d miss the elbow-room.

  284. Hoi Polloi (02:29:49) :

    It’s time Limbaugh goes back to his pills, again. The man is an utter disgrace for human being and deserved to be either euthanised or at least put away in a secure surrounding.

    I get it. Rush is an enemy of the people. As are the Kulaks who resist the advantages of collectivization for their private gain.

    How Stalinist of you Mr. Polloi.

  285. Benjamin P. (10:09:49) :

    Good for ratings. Rush is an entertainer. I bet he voted for Obama simply to make sure he was president so Rush could have more listeners to get all angry like.

    As for Revkin, he is right when he says there are too many people on this earth.

    Finite amount of resources can only support a finite population.

    Benji,

    Why are you posting here instead of doing the right thing for the planet?

    ==

    Finite resources can support a variable population depending on the ingenuity of the population. Bucky Fuller coined a phrase that encapsulates the idea:

    “Doing more with less”

    For instance how many of you have an air conditioned 2,000 sq ft room and a steady 30KW electric flow to support your 10 ton computer (lightning fast at 10 MIPS with an astounding 20 megabytes of rotating storage – available for $10 million and cheap at twice the price) ?

    And how about that 500 lb 32 inch CRT protruding from your wall?

    Or having to go to the movies on a hot summer day if you want to cool off?

    Or spending 30% or more of your budget on food?

    Or the $600 a month T1 line (1.5 Mbs) to feed your 10 ton computer.

    When these “sustainable idiots” start ranting the first question to ask is “at what level of technology?” 1700s technology or 2100s technology?

  286. I am a conservative and a Canadian citizen who rarely listens to American media talking heads, only imagining what a Rush Limbaugh is/represents. But it seems that this man had expressed the sentiment feeling of many people,rational thinking people who get absolutely frustrated dealing with and argueing with idiots and fanatics, and fanatics they most certainly are Mr.Watts. Perhaps mr Limbaugh spoke his feelings in a coarse turn of phrase and not in a much more eloquent turn, yet he did express his thoughts and should not retract at this point. As a historian I can say that throughout history fanaticism has invariably produced a bloody turn of events, on small and grand scales. From Waco to the Nazis Holocaust, so I see nothing wrong with lashing out back in equal measure against potential efforts to instill propaganda harmful to society. Much too late, does the thinking man take action against those who would strip him of his liberty and freedom. The fanatic has already set in motion the historical imperative.

  287. Benjamin P. (10:09:49) :” [snip] As for Revkin, he is right when he says there are too many people on this earth.

    Finite amount of resources can only support a finite population. [snip]

    Benjamin, how do you know he is right? It will be an epiphany for you when you wake up and realize that the very same people who strive to persuade us that there are “too many people” are exactly the same ones attempting to persuade us that our climate is in crisis. They use exactly the same tactic of feeding us bogus information to support their claims too. Are you blind to the fact that the very people who are declaring these things are the same ones installing themselves into a position of authority over us? Ask yourself, does anyone really know the ‘correct’ number of people to be on this planet and do they really know the extent of our resources? Of course not and there is no one who actually knows the ‘correct’ temperature of the planet or the ‘correct’ amount of CO2 either.

    As further illustration Benjamin, let’s bite on the premise that there actually are too many people. Now explain to us why YOU should be the one in charge of culling the herd? You better make it a good one Benjamin because your failure to convince us that you should be the one to do the culling automatically places you into the herd with the rest of us. If this begins to sound a little evil then I’ve made my point…..

  288. Anthony,

    Regarding your most recent update, you’ve just corroborated Rush’s point, namely that some environmentalists are insinuating, suggesting, or outright calling for the death of people to “save the planet.” The only difference between you and Rush in this case is that Rush WOULD have turned to that local eco-person of yours and said “you first” instead of remaining silent as you did. Thank God that Rush is calling out this twisted ideology to people who may not yet know about it.

    Rush doesn’t want anyone to kill themselves.
    You don’t want anyone to kill themselves.
    Some environmentalists DO want people to kill themselves.

    So I remain perplexed that you criticized Rush for calling out evil, when it is the environmentalist death-wishing evil itself that needs to be dealt with.

    REPLY: It’s really simple. I’ve been subjected to the same sort of language, I don’t agree with it’s use. I have no problem calling out the issue when the issue is forced on us, but one has to be careful how its phrased, otherwise the insult becomes the issue and the message is lost. – Anthony

  289. @Oliver Ramsay (00:06:52) :

    “I’m interested to know if you believe that doubling the population to 27½ billion after we’ve “easily” supported the prior doubling to 13¾ billion would be just as easy and still just a matter of “reliable energy”. How about 55 billion?”

    Of course. Do you see a problem? Please explain.

    “Do you have an opinion about when phosphate would become an issue? Or Potash? Or elbow-room?”

    You do realize that no “stuff” ever leaves the Earth? Except for those few tons of “stuff” that are shot into space via rocketry? You also do realize that mankind has a certain ingenuity for substituting materials when the need arises? (rocks gave way to bronze, bronze to iron, etc.)

    “When you say “support” do you mean for 100,000 years?
    I’m really not sure whether this is a matter of principle for you. The vehemence of several previous posters suggests it is for them.
    At the present growth rate, there would be 27 billion in 120 years. I don’t care; I’ll be long dead. I just don’t believe that there’ll be plenty of “stuff” indefinitely. Mostly, I’d miss the elbow-room.”

    At the present growth rate there will likely be fewer people in 100 years. Mark Steyn covered this very well in his book America Alone.

    As to the “stuff” being used up, not lasting indefinitely, that is the common misconception. No stuff ever leaves the Earth, as I wrote above (and the one exception). All “stuff” can be recycled into reuseable material, given sufficient cheap energy. This is not debatable, it is absolute fact. The idiocy is that so many people (including engineers who should know better) are brainwashed into thinking the world is running out of “stuff.”

    As to elbow room, there is plenty of that, too. We have only begun to populate the planet, to build residences and factories, and all the other things. There are vast expanses of land – utterly unused, due to our preference (but not our need) for “good land.” There is no requirement that factories and offices be built above-ground; it is just as practical to build all these underground, it merely requires more energy. Plenty of room down there.

    There is also much more area on the ocean (floating islands, artificial islands). Finally, there is far more area under the ocean, should the need ever arise.

    Club of Rome – ists bleated about this (over-population) decades ago. Their fatal flaw is not crediting the engineers with ingenuity.

  290. P.S. I think this post and the comments are revealing a deeper truth about the modern environmentalist movement – one that all of the fine graphs and tables on this blog can never reach.

  291. BTW, “Dittohead” doesn’t mean “I agree with you.” Without the long explanation, it means, “Boy, am I glad to find someone on the radio saying what I think!”

    Yes, but I also remember quite well that when Limbaugh suggested that callers just say “dittos” instead of simply praising the program, he wanted to create more time for people to make their own points instead. Then many people even used the “ditto” space to make points, e.g., “dittos from the Peoples’ Republic of X”, “dittos from a proud cornfed ‘redneck'”, “dittos from a happily enslaved wife”, or whatever the callers wanted to come up with before getting to what they wanted to say about some particular issue which Limbaugh had broached.

    What many of Limbaugh’s groupthink detractors obviously can’t stand is the individual rationality which characterizes the program – people thinking rationally for themselves. That’s why I kept listening even when I disagreed with Limbaugh. Where else does “meaning” come from?

  292. Roger Sowell said:

    “You do realize that no “stuff” ever leaves the Earth? Except for those few tons of “stuff” that are shot into space via rocketry? You also do realize that mankind has a certain ingenuity for substituting materials when the need arises? (rocks gave way to bronze, bronze to iron, etc.)”

    I was afraid that that was the level of discussion to be had.

  293. I wish I could articulate how upset this post by Mr. Watts has made me, instead I will just stop coming to this site. hangs head in shame and walks away.

    REPLY: That’s a pretty extreme reaction for expressing my displeasure at language that I have been subjected to in the past. Do you do the same to your friends if they say something you disagree with?

    – Anthony

  294. Why is it in bad taste to simply ask the green reapers to go to the head of the queue they’re building? It’s not a matter of a difference of opinion, which is what drives those who wish you would drop dead. The point is the eco-tyrants want to cull the planet of billions, but everyone else is the first to go.
    In a way the Rush/Revkin spat is quite similar to the leftist call for ‘civility’ so that bad words aren’t being said about their man Obama. Statists are walking into your house, stealing your money and your freedom and they wish to be treated civilly? Thieves and thugs don’t deserve civil, and neither do the murderous greenies.

  295. Roger Sowell (10:35:12) :

    Thanks for that link, Roger. While I’ve realized for some time now that cities are not mere consumers of the world’s production, as some city-haters say, I didn’t know that cities were THAT rich a source of phosphorus. That illustrates perfectly how cities are the continual “victims” of their own success. They’re not talking about using this waste stream for greater agricultural demand. They’re saying it’s excessive for that demand, and are therefore looking to meet other industrial demands so that we don’t have to chip away at the in-ground supply. So city life is not only sustainable, it also contributes to everyone’s prosperity and well-being!

  296. psi (19:03:56) :

    Jack Green (16:57:29) :

    I don’t think Rush Limbaugh stepped over any line that you have drawn. These people truly believe that there are too many people in the world and that we need to reduce the population to save the planet. They are that bold and wacko in their beliefs. It justifies abortion, planned parenthood, and all the crazy AGW stuff. Read some of the quotes from Revkin and think about it.

    Jack, my friend, you are engaging in painting with a pretty broad (and uninformed) brush here. You have a right to think that birth control and planned parent are wrong. But the fact is that most rational people don’t agree with you — moreover, the meme that environmentalists want to reduce population through genocide and similar means is getting a bit worn around the edges.

    Most people do understand that the world is overpopulated according to any rational understanding. Critical ecosystem elements such as, in my local backyard, the Chesapeake bay, have been weakened by our abuse of local environments. There are too many people, too many houses, and too little proper understanding and planning for managing our relationships with fragile ecosystems. This is true, even if AGW is a load of baloney.

    1. See other thread, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/extremists-more-willing-to-share-their-opinions-study-finds/ to see why your entire argument is wrong. No, “most rational people” do NOT feel we’re overpopulated, and “most rational people” may very well have a problem with too easily available birth control.

    2. Examples abound of bad management, like Chesapeake Bay or my own city’s water supply. These examples of HORRIBLE mismanagement are not indicative of overpopulation, but are often a result of GREEN mismanagement… some of it deliberate.

    When cities are no longer allowed to build dams to manage water supplies, when utilities are not allowed to build generating stations, when the “green” brigade does any of the whack things they do to cripple our society, they then turn around and use the results to “prove” their misguided twittery.

    And you may not, but I do personally know “greens” who would be more than happy to see millions or billions of deaths. You want to talk about painting with an uninformed brush???

  297. Benjamin,

    You are so right, that cities are resources. In Los Angeles, California, where I work, construction projects must recycle almost all demolition debris. It costs a bit more to do it this way, but it reduces the need for virgin material. Some things cannot be recycled – usually for safety or technical reasons – but most things can be. Brick, concrete, asphalt, steel, aluminum, copper, glass, plastic, almost everything must be recycled. Hazardous chemicals must be captured and disposed of properly.

    The water from waste treatment plants is recycled (although this creates major issues with chemical/drug components that are not removed).

    The sludge from waste treatment plants is rich in several constituents – with phosphorus being one of these as shown above.

    Municipal solid waste dumps are just waiting to be mined, as soon as virgin materials exceed the break-even price for doing so. In the interim, MSW can be used – and is being used – as raw material for bio-gas and synthetic liquids fuels.

    As to Rush’s comment, I also have a few who are on my “better off dead” list. However, I prefer to point out the inaccuracies or idiocy of the rabid environmentalists’ positions. Some see the light and are converted, and most will never be.

    What bothers me is the increasing number of young engineers (even chemical engineers) who buy into the myth that “we are running out of stuff.”

  298. Mr. Watts;
    I discovered your site about 1 year ago; it is an intreging read almost every day. I understand some of the basic science that is debated, but often I am overwelmed by the complexity of the question of AGW.

    It seems that those “believers” who proclaim to understand every minute detail that places our planet in immediate peril and humanity must resort to the “eat a dog” theory, and return ones family to the cave in order to survive; sometimes requires the absurdity of a statement such as that by Rush to maintain overall perspective.

    I feel certain Rush wishes death to no one. Seriousness is not always readily visible and sometimes takes awhile for the intended irony to become clearer.

    Thank you for establishing your site. I have described it to many such as
    myself who just want the opportunity to know what other “learned scientist” may be thinking and researching.

  299. Mike M (06:24:18) :

    “Now explain to us why YOU should be the one in charge of culling the herd? You better make it a good one Benjamin because your failure to convince us that you should be the one to do the culling automatically places you into the herd with the rest of us. If this begins to sound a little evil then I’ve made my point…”

    Because that is exactly what I was advocating? Sheesh.

    I need to correct myself though. The earth is capable of sustaining the current population, but there is a limit to population growth.

    I don’t know what the number is, but it’s a basic concept from biology.

  300. Not to flog a deceased equine…(picks up whip)…but,

    I didn’t hear what Rush said. I’m not aware of what quote of Revkin’s he is responding to. OTOH, a quick look at this site http://green-agenda.com/ will yield a number of quotes from Club of Rome, Algore, David Brower, et. al. that are just the sort of thing that I can well imagine Rush was responding to. The AGW propagandists are pretty clear in their belief that the best thing you can do for your children is to not have them. As you have said, Anthony, sometimes when someone does live radio with no script things don’t come out exactly as they may have been intended. I would give Rush the benefit of the doubt on this one. Thanks for a great site. It gets better all the time.

  301. Benjamin P,

    The basic concept from biology is true, but has a few caveats. One, a finite environment, two, finite nutrients, three, finite waste removal, four, deadly disease. The earth is not anywhere close to any limits on any of the first three. 6 billion people is barely noticeable. Deadly disease is another matter.

    Populations can grow until a true limit on any of the first three is reached. A limit is not going to happen in any conceivable planning horizon.

    I repeat: no atom of “stuff” ever leaves the earth (unless shot off into space). Energy makes every ounce of “stuff” infinitely recyclable.

    The true population control-freaks are those who manipulate access to cheap energy, especially petroleum. One can include in that number those who impose limits on the use of cheap coal, and environmental obstructionism for wind, solar, wave, and ocean current power sources.

  302. The problem with your assessment Roger is that our environment, nutrients, etc are NOT ‘finite’ in the sense of natural biology because we manipulate all of them via technology. Take nutrients, if the extent of the progress of our technical abilty stopped at hunting animals and picking berries then those would represent a very low finite resource likely incapable of supporting 6 billion people, (depending on what we’re willing to eat…). As someone else pointed out above, we keep engineering an expanding envelope and though it’s difficult to predict exactly what the limit of that ultimately could be – our success in getting to where we are is quite dramatic and totally unlike any other life form on this planet. Few of us would stand a chance surviving like our caveman bretheren did a few million years ago; most of us would die of starvation, disease, exposure, etc. In other words, we have become so utterly dependent upon our own technology that there is just no room to even consider ‘going back to the garden’. So forward is the only direction we can go and cheap energy is at the bottom supporting/advancing of all of it – precisely what ‘they’ want to chop out from under us all for a false politically manufactured reason.

    Earth might be a much more ‘peaceful’ place with a lot fewer people on it, (just look at how peaceful cemetaries are) – and I think that’s the real reason that Gore got a ‘peace prize’ though they’ll NEVER admit it.

  303. Mike M,

    I think we agree more than disagree. We agree that abundant and cheap energy is required to sustain population growth. Any constraints imposed on producing adequate energy therefore limits population.

    The key question is how to achieve the “big breakthrough” to abundant, renewable, and very cheap energy. One limit thus far has been abundant and therefore cheap coal and cheap oil and cheap natural gas. When fossil fuels increase sufficiently in cost, the incentive to create renewable energy systems will arise. In the interim, governments are very clumsily pushing progress.

    However, a fundamental discovery was made in 2004 by British scientists, when they discovered the atomic structure of the protein site in chlorophyll that uses sunshine to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This will probably go down in history as the second or third greatest discovery of all time, after fire and nuclear fission.

  304. Roger, yes I concur that the capitalist model has repeatedly proven itself to generate the greatest bounty since the beginning of civilization despite the constant whining of every anti-capitalist/dictator who came along to attempt to insert themselves into a position of control along the way. As one more possible nail in the coffin for the ‘we have to limit oil production because we’re going to run out of it’ crowd, (many of whom say that to our face while they fleece us behind our back in the oil speculation market), there is a theory that crude oil might not actually be ‘fossil fuel’ after all but abiogenic. A paper by J. F. Kenny explains – http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm

  305. No apology is required…

    Rush illustrates absurdity by responding with an absurdity… to emphasize the main point.

    Rush’s comment was within the context of the Revkin point… and it hit the nail on the head… forcefully… all the way in.

    As you mentioned, Anthony, “… ‘if you really think this way, then you first, Mr. Revkin’ would be humorous satire, and if Rush had added your words at the end of his poignant comment, it would have been delicious too.

Comments are closed.