Rush Limbaugh stepped over a line of bad taste today during his radio broadcast.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Let the one who’s free of any guilt cast the first stone.
229 Responses. And what did we learn?
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?
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).
If wasn’t for people like Rush, the AGW agenda would have been implmented long ago, and this website would today be irrelevant.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
Apology? For this?
Wow….I just….wow…..
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.
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.
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
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.
Oops – should read Not a liberal versus conservative issue. I need to proof better.