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
“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.
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’ ?
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.
302 Responses. And what did we learn…
you edit Limbaugh and not Matthews.
Partington:
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.)
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.
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.
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
@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.
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.
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.
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!”
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
“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
What Limbaugh was getting at (I believe) was an attempt to show, as most predominant, the hypocrisy of the econuts.
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.
Hehe there are reasons why I dont listen to Rush, IMHO he gets too much publicity as it is:P
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.
Perhaps Revkin does not actually believe this and was only arguing the potential benefits of population control in the abstract,
Ah but arguing the abstract is the first step in turning the abstract into concrete.
Here is how it is done:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/09/how-to-put-end-to-drug-users.html
There are steps needed in preparation for policy implementation. Andy R. is one of the useful idiots preparing the way.
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?
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.
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…..
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
@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.
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.