Rush is off base with his ugly suggestion to Revkin

Agreed… an apology is in order.

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).

No, let’s leave the “yelling” out, also.

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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”.

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

Rush is a national treasure. His humor is the gift that keeps on giving.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

Eh.
I’m really trying to care, but it’s hard.
Why are we talking about Rush anyway?

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

“You First.” What’s the harm in that?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

Rush is rarely right…about anything….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The story of DDT.
http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

“Second, who receives more vituperative comments from the left than Rush?”
That’s easy, Sarah Palin

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. 🙂

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Rush is off base with his ugly suggestion to Revkin.
Revkin is off base with his ugly suggestion to humanity.

Oops! Link for Pianka quote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5c_1241026508&c=1
/Mr L

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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

Giga dittos!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.