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
BTW, “Dittohead” doesn’t mean “I agree with you.” Without the long explanation, it means, “Boy, am I glad to find someone on the radio saying what I think!”
Yes, but I also remember quite well that when Limbaugh suggested that callers just say “dittos” instead of simply praising the program, he wanted to create more time for people to make their own points instead. Then many people even used the “ditto” space to make points, e.g., “dittos from the Peoples’ Republic of X”, “dittos from a proud cornfed ‘redneck'”, “dittos from a happily enslaved wife”, or whatever the callers wanted to come up with before getting to what they wanted to say about some particular issue which Limbaugh had broached.
What many of Limbaugh’s groupthink detractors obviously can’t stand is the individual rationality which characterizes the program – people thinking rationally for themselves. That’s why I kept listening even when I disagreed with Limbaugh. Where else does “meaning” come from?
Roger Sowell said:
“You do realize that no “stuff” ever leaves the Earth? Except for those few tons of “stuff” that are shot into space via rocketry? You also do realize that mankind has a certain ingenuity for substituting materials when the need arises? (rocks gave way to bronze, bronze to iron, etc.)”
I was afraid that that was the level of discussion to be had.
Oliver Ramsay:
Perhaps this will alleviate your fears of a phosphate “shortage.” Sufficient supplies of energy enable recycling.
http://www.ceep-phosphates.org/Files/Document/75/CEEP%20P-recovery%20information%207-2007.pdf
As always, the engineers have the answers.
I wish I could articulate how upset this post by Mr. Watts has made me, instead I will just stop coming to this site. hangs head in shame and walks away.
REPLY: That’s a pretty extreme reaction for expressing my displeasure at language that I have been subjected to in the past. Do you do the same to your friends if they say something you disagree with?
– Anthony
Why is it in bad taste to simply ask the green reapers to go to the head of the queue they’re building? It’s not a matter of a difference of opinion, which is what drives those who wish you would drop dead. The point is the eco-tyrants want to cull the planet of billions, but everyone else is the first to go.
In a way the Rush/Revkin spat is quite similar to the leftist call for ‘civility’ so that bad words aren’t being said about their man Obama. Statists are walking into your house, stealing your money and your freedom and they wish to be treated civilly? Thieves and thugs don’t deserve civil, and neither do the murderous greenies.
Roger Sowell (10:35:12) :
Thanks for that link, Roger. While I’ve realized for some time now that cities are not mere consumers of the world’s production, as some city-haters say, I didn’t know that cities were THAT rich a source of phosphorus. That illustrates perfectly how cities are the continual “victims” of their own success. They’re not talking about using this waste stream for greater agricultural demand. They’re saying it’s excessive for that demand, and are therefore looking to meet other industrial demands so that we don’t have to chip away at the in-ground supply. So city life is not only sustainable, it also contributes to everyone’s prosperity and well-being!
1. See other thread, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/extremists-more-willing-to-share-their-opinions-study-finds/ to see why your entire argument is wrong. No, “most rational people” do NOT feel we’re overpopulated, and “most rational people” may very well have a problem with too easily available birth control.
2. Examples abound of bad management, like Chesapeake Bay or my own city’s water supply. These examples of HORRIBLE mismanagement are not indicative of overpopulation, but are often a result of GREEN mismanagement… some of it deliberate.
When cities are no longer allowed to build dams to manage water supplies, when utilities are not allowed to build generating stations, when the “green” brigade does any of the whack things they do to cripple our society, they then turn around and use the results to “prove” their misguided twittery.
And you may not, but I do personally know “greens” who would be more than happy to see millions or billions of deaths. You want to talk about painting with an uninformed brush???
Benjamin,
You are so right, that cities are resources. In Los Angeles, California, where I work, construction projects must recycle almost all demolition debris. It costs a bit more to do it this way, but it reduces the need for virgin material. Some things cannot be recycled – usually for safety or technical reasons – but most things can be. Brick, concrete, asphalt, steel, aluminum, copper, glass, plastic, almost everything must be recycled. Hazardous chemicals must be captured and disposed of properly.
The water from waste treatment plants is recycled (although this creates major issues with chemical/drug components that are not removed).
The sludge from waste treatment plants is rich in several constituents – with phosphorus being one of these as shown above.
Municipal solid waste dumps are just waiting to be mined, as soon as virgin materials exceed the break-even price for doing so. In the interim, MSW can be used – and is being used – as raw material for bio-gas and synthetic liquids fuels.
As to Rush’s comment, I also have a few who are on my “better off dead” list. However, I prefer to point out the inaccuracies or idiocy of the rabid environmentalists’ positions. Some see the light and are converted, and most will never be.
What bothers me is the increasing number of young engineers (even chemical engineers) who buy into the myth that “we are running out of stuff.”
Mr. Watts;
I discovered your site about 1 year ago; it is an intreging read almost every day. I understand some of the basic science that is debated, but often I am overwelmed by the complexity of the question of AGW.
It seems that those “believers” who proclaim to understand every minute detail that places our planet in immediate peril and humanity must resort to the “eat a dog” theory, and return ones family to the cave in order to survive; sometimes requires the absurdity of a statement such as that by Rush to maintain overall perspective.
I feel certain Rush wishes death to no one. Seriousness is not always readily visible and sometimes takes awhile for the intended irony to become clearer.
Thank you for establishing your site. I have described it to many such as
myself who just want the opportunity to know what other “learned scientist” may be thinking and researching.
Mike M (06:24:18) :
“Now explain to us why YOU should be the one in charge of culling the herd? You better make it a good one Benjamin because your failure to convince us that you should be the one to do the culling automatically places you into the herd with the rest of us. If this begins to sound a little evil then I’ve made my point…”
Because that is exactly what I was advocating? Sheesh.
I need to correct myself though. The earth is capable of sustaining the current population, but there is a limit to population growth.
I don’t know what the number is, but it’s a basic concept from biology.
Not to flog a deceased equine…(picks up whip)…but,
I didn’t hear what Rush said. I’m not aware of what quote of Revkin’s he is responding to. OTOH, a quick look at this site http://green-agenda.com/ will yield a number of quotes from Club of Rome, Algore, David Brower, et. al. that are just the sort of thing that I can well imagine Rush was responding to. The AGW propagandists are pretty clear in their belief that the best thing you can do for your children is to not have them. As you have said, Anthony, sometimes when someone does live radio with no script things don’t come out exactly as they may have been intended. I would give Rush the benefit of the doubt on this one. Thanks for a great site. It gets better all the time.
Benjamin P,
The basic concept from biology is true, but has a few caveats. One, a finite environment, two, finite nutrients, three, finite waste removal, four, deadly disease. The earth is not anywhere close to any limits on any of the first three. 6 billion people is barely noticeable. Deadly disease is another matter.
Populations can grow until a true limit on any of the first three is reached. A limit is not going to happen in any conceivable planning horizon.
I repeat: no atom of “stuff” ever leaves the earth (unless shot off into space). Energy makes every ounce of “stuff” infinitely recyclable.
The true population control-freaks are those who manipulate access to cheap energy, especially petroleum. One can include in that number those who impose limits on the use of cheap coal, and environmental obstructionism for wind, solar, wave, and ocean current power sources.
The problem with your assessment Roger is that our environment, nutrients, etc are NOT ‘finite’ in the sense of natural biology because we manipulate all of them via technology. Take nutrients, if the extent of the progress of our technical abilty stopped at hunting animals and picking berries then those would represent a very low finite resource likely incapable of supporting 6 billion people, (depending on what we’re willing to eat…). As someone else pointed out above, we keep engineering an expanding envelope and though it’s difficult to predict exactly what the limit of that ultimately could be – our success in getting to where we are is quite dramatic and totally unlike any other life form on this planet. Few of us would stand a chance surviving like our caveman bretheren did a few million years ago; most of us would die of starvation, disease, exposure, etc. In other words, we have become so utterly dependent upon our own technology that there is just no room to even consider ‘going back to the garden’. So forward is the only direction we can go and cheap energy is at the bottom supporting/advancing of all of it – precisely what ‘they’ want to chop out from under us all for a false politically manufactured reason.
Earth might be a much more ‘peaceful’ place with a lot fewer people on it, (just look at how peaceful cemetaries are) – and I think that’s the real reason that Gore got a ‘peace prize’ though they’ll NEVER admit it.
Mike M,
I think we agree more than disagree. We agree that abundant and cheap energy is required to sustain population growth. Any constraints imposed on producing adequate energy therefore limits population.
The key question is how to achieve the “big breakthrough” to abundant, renewable, and very cheap energy. One limit thus far has been abundant and therefore cheap coal and cheap oil and cheap natural gas. When fossil fuels increase sufficiently in cost, the incentive to create renewable energy systems will arise. In the interim, governments are very clumsily pushing progress.
However, a fundamental discovery was made in 2004 by British scientists, when they discovered the atomic structure of the protein site in chlorophyll that uses sunshine to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This will probably go down in history as the second or third greatest discovery of all time, after fire and nuclear fission.
Roger, yes I concur that the capitalist model has repeatedly proven itself to generate the greatest bounty since the beginning of civilization despite the constant whining of every anti-capitalist/dictator who came along to attempt to insert themselves into a position of control along the way. As one more possible nail in the coffin for the ‘we have to limit oil production because we’re going to run out of it’ crowd, (many of whom say that to our face while they fleece us behind our back in the oil speculation market), there is a theory that crude oil might not actually be ‘fossil fuel’ after all but abiogenic. A paper by J. F. Kenny explains – http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm
No apology is required…
Rush illustrates absurdity by responding with an absurdity… to emphasize the main point.
Rush’s comment was within the context of the Revkin point… and it hit the nail on the head… forcefully… all the way in.
As you mentioned, Anthony, “… ‘if you really think this way, then you first, Mr. Revkin’ would be humorous satire, and if Rush had added your words at the end of his poignant comment, it would have been delicious too.