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
I have frequently suggested to people who insist that CO2 is a pollutant that they should refrain from exhaling.
Rush’s mistake (assuming quotation is accurate) is in naming AR who is by no means the archtypical fanatical warmenist.
There are other names he could have used and no apology would have been required.
Unless it can be demonstrated that AR has used equally inflammatory language, Rush should apologize.
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 agree. He is way out of line. Had to look up who Andy Revkin was.
Just a greenie who means well and believes in AGW. There are plenty of those around. We dont (or shouldnt) tell them to kill themselves.
I think this Rush Limbaugh bloke is off his rocker as are a few warmies.
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.
I do not think that Rush stretched the bounds of good taste. Anymore than that fellow that tries to scare everybody telling us there may only be “one breeding pair” of humans living in Antarctica in a century.
I for one am TOTALLY SICK of a very small portion of our population continuing to SCREAM about how all the rest of us are KILLING the planet. When someone suggests that there are too many other humans around that seems like the biggest argument against, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” that I have ever heard of.
If they really had any good basis for this nonsense most of the rest of us responsible humans would do what we could to prevent the problem. However they long ago DESTROYED any credibility they claim to have regarding their ability to predict the future. As they continue their SHOUTING, we increase our belief that they are full of something.
They declared this war on those who don’t believe as they do. Sure reminds me of another group that “piloted” some planes to other than their intended destinations back in ’01 because they didn’t agree with the way we live.
I sometimes think the best outcome would be an EMP bomb that destroyed our ability to “model” the climate with computers. Then the “Climate Scientists” would have to use an Ouija board. At least then the general population would figure out they are being scammed.
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.
Limbaugh’s remarks must be placed in the context of pointing out the failure of the environmentalists to take their own prescriptions for climate change . They demand others ride bicycles while they fly in jets. They demand others buy a hybrid while they ride in SUVs.
Limbaugh’s shtick is hyperbolic parody and satire. This was the context in which Limbaugh’s suggestion was given.
To assert that Limbaugh was actually recommended suicide for Revkin is therefore inaccurate, and an apology unnecessary.
Unfortunately I think threads like this will degenrate into slanging matches that will drag this site down to the level of CP and RC… often I have seen more rational debates warned for straying from the science, but somehow Rush’s off-the-hip remark is worthy of intense analysis? I don’t think you are doing this site any favours with this one Andy, and there is only one direction this thread is going to go IMHO.
In his book “The secret india” T.Brunton, writes he asked his Guru: How can I improve the world?, the sage answer was:
If you begin with yourself and change, you would have began to change the world”
This is, I think, is the meaning of what Rush Limbaugh said.
I dont know about Revkin but many greenies have the attitude that humanity is destroying the planet, and we are evil. They fail to recognise that the average bloke is a decent chap and we are part of nature and the eco-system. These guys would be happy if there was wide spread destruction and death.
But just because their thinking is warped, there is no reason ours should be too.
Back2Bat (17:51:42)
You took what I said out of context. I didn’t say Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism. I said “Using this measure [i.e., the degree of vituperation leveled at someone by his/her opponents] … Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism“. My question to you is twofold: First, do you think Rush is a liberal, conservative, or neither? Second, who receives more vituperative comments from the left than Rush?
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.
Bulldust: What I find great about WUWT is the low level of ad hominum and personal attacks (and censorship) which one finds at RC and left-wing sites. Even the present thread has not degenerated despite the opposing opinions. I think that is due to the superior level of intelligence and maturity of WUWT participants…..
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.
I’m a libertarian and believe in the moral imperative of free speech. Demanding apologies constitutes a “humanitarian” threat to free thought (see: Jonathan Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought).
Don’t like what Rush says? Ignore him.
And rise above the cacophony by avoiding ad hominem and other logical fallacies.
The story of DDT.
http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm
Rush is simply exposing the hypocrisy within the AGW movement, especially leadership, he’s not actually proposing that Mr. Revkin go off and die. It’s pure sarcasm, hyperbolized, but sarcasm still.
The problem with people like Revkin, Gore, et al. is they seem to know what’s good for the rest of us but the rules never apply to them. It’s kind of like Gore smogging up the airways and powering up his castle in Nashville while telling us we need to cut back or we’re going to destroy the planet. The point is, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!”
Mr. Revkin should apologize to the population for suggesting that we reduce ourselves. What exactly does he mean by reduce?
He begins by saying, “if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate . . .
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
Actually this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/09/uk-television-ad-for-action-on-co2-is-beyond-bad-taste/
is worse than Rush; its from the Govt and is packed with falshoods and bizarre scare tactics
Rush who? People like him sideline themselves if you just let him rant while we are occupied with more serious and worthwhile debate.
Actually, I agree with Rush Limbaugh about these people who propose to limit the number of humans through government regulations (I dunno who Revkin is exactly, so I will not say him specifically). Controlling our numbers. If it is that important to limit our numbers, start with the believers. If you think humans are evil, and you are human, and evil must be eradicated, then start with yourself and go away. Stop eating, stop drinking, stop heating/cooling your home, stop going to the store and just go away. People like Al Gore who consumes 20 times or more energy in one year than I do for just one of his many homes telling me I have to conserve is unconscionable. Set an example, cut your energy use to 1/2 that of mine, and then show me that it is a viable alternative to my current lifestyle. Until then, you are in no position to rell me how much energy I should be allowed to consume.
The gloves have to come off. This is a battle for survival. When they hit you, you hit back twice as hard.
“You took what I said out of context. I didn’t say Rush Limbaugh is THE most effective messenger of the evils of liberalism and socialism.” Reed Corway
Sorry Reed, mea Culpa. In answer to your question Rush is a conservative. But conservatives merely wish to conserve the past which is supposed to have been a better time. But our present problems come from past mistakes.
I see the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 as the chief cause of our problems. I would abolish it, not conserve it. What would a conservative want? Hence, Rush is no ally of mine. I have more in common with Pam, for instance.
I am a Ron Paul Libertarian.
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.
jack mosevich (18:18:49) :
I hear ya – which is why I like spending time here. While my background is in extractive metallurgy and mineral economics, I have gained enormous insight (hopefully most of my intuition is accurate) on the CC caper.
I have had posts moderated to the bit bucket on both Climate Progress and Real Climate. They only allow like-minded comments or comments that are so obviously wrong that even they can refute them (I suspect many of these are posted by the site supporters under pseudonyms to bolster their case – but then I am naturally cycnical/sceptical by nature … some would call it realist).
David L Morris (16:38:48) :
Add me to the list if you like. I am basically centrist, swing-voting, agnostic by nature. Ironically, despite being white, male and anglo (I have papers to prove this – the South African government once gave me a paper classifying me as a white person… must get that framed one day) – I was once funded by the Australian Government as a minority (I never saw the funds, of course, they went into the school coffers I was working for).
Given the latter, I have a strong sceptical view on most government prohrams. For the record I was funded as a minority because I came from a non-English speaking background (for which one parent had to have a non-English first language – in my case Dutch). Aussie tax dollars well spent no doubt… I do get a kick out of telling people I am a minority, however… it gets the odd laugh here and there.