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
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.
Anthony,
I invite you to go to the following and give close attention to the content. Perhaps you will understand – perhaps you will not – the world of Rush Limbaugh – and unfortunately, ours to be.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen
It isn’t necessary this comment appear. But you need to read. Perhaps then you will understand the greater current against which your battle with weather station is fought.
If you are liberal in your thinking I am certain this will only fuel your ‘concern’ for what Limbaugh said. My dear fellow, you walk among times and people for which there is abundant history not to be admired.
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.
Anthony,
You say you don’t want to lower the debate to the point where we are promoting our agenda with the suggestion that people die. However, let’s take into account the number of people who have died from a DDT ban. Let’s also take into account the number of people who would starve to death were we to go all organic farming. Let’s also take into account the number of people who will currently starve to death due to the pressure to use “renewable resources” in just about every product you can imagine.
Of course, I don’t want anyone to die and that’s my point. This “dumb” environmentalism will kill people. Period. It will if our simple-minded politicians continue this line of thinking.
Now, I don’t give Rush the credit of actually understanding these issues in depth like many of us do, but I think one could argue that Rush was using satire. It would take the form as such: “Well, you all want to institute all of these changes that will kill millions of people, but if consumption is the problem and you are so passionate about it, then why don’t you just go ahead and kill yourself?!”
Obviously I don’t personally agree with this in the literal sense, but I can understand it as a satirical take on the truly serious and deadly consequences many of these ill-founded and impractical “environmental” policies will have.
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 would suggest you print the two paragraphs following his suggestion, so as not to take his words out of context. You might find them instructive.
I was listening to the show above, and Rush need not apologize.
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!
The trillions of dollars wasted on AGW already could have saved millions of lives already. That money could have built wells, treated water, and all the other good stuff.
Words are only the start of the wave of anger that people have festered up…… next we just might have some civil disobedience. (sound similar)
And who knows… maybe even a GENERAL STRIKE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKgsoVYrojk
It cannot be said too often or too strongly:
Liberalism is the political philosophy of enslavement. In the end, there will be one set of rules for the “elites”, and a completely different set of rules for us “plebeians”.
Leadership the the ability to get others to follow you on the strength of your character, and example. No true leader ever asks an underling to do anything that s/he is not willing to first do her/himself.
Sorry to repeat what others have said before on this thread; had to throw my two cents in.
Mr. Revkin should apologize for having bought so completely into the greatest hoax in history.
Mark H.
I have thought it, Rush said it out loud, who is the worse person?
I am sorry Anthony but I cannot condemn anyone for saying something I actually agree with, no matter how tasteless others feel it is.
I understand if it crosses some moral line with you but that is what personal freedom is the ability to decide for yourself what is right and wrong. Did we not just do the Ayn Rand thing here?
I feel anti-human over-population beliefs are personally offensive and based on really poor understanding of the planet and of our species but I would never ask anyone to apologize for wanting me and 6 Billion of my closest friends dead, mock them and ridicule them sure, but not demand an apology.
Nothing but a difference of opinion, it is what makes the world go round… all wobbly like it does.
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.
I thought this was a science blog.
Anthony – I love your work on surface stations and so many other technical issues, BUT you are far off-base here regarding Rush.
Limbaugh did not advocate Revkin’s death, but merely suggested that if Andy R is true to his stated beliefs about human impact on the environment, that he (Revkin) should take the first, most obvious step toward his (Revkin’s) solution.
Yes, Rush illustrates the absurd by taking it to its absurd conclusion. He is the Thomas Paine of our generation (recall “A Modest Proposal”).
Limbaugh’s primary strength is insightful political commentary and he has a remarkable record of forecasting political events/trends in the U.S.
His summaries and interpretations of science issues, particularly climate/environment matters, have been similarly on-target, well informed, and far ahead of the State-controlled media for more than a decade.
Rush embodies common sense, which is why he appeals to so many across the country and around the world.
Andy Revkin will probably recognize (soon) that the whole man-made global warming thing is a huge hoax/lemming-leap and will distance himself from the alarmist nut-jobs.
Or he will stick with the Ohmygawd-modelers and go down with the rest of the New York Times. His choice, just like taking his next (CO2-generating) breath.
Reply: A Modest Proposal was penned by Jonathan Swift ~ charles the moderator
When all the left wing environmental radicals apologize for their loony frickin’ attitudes and attacks, that will be the time for Rush to become reasonable.
In the meantime, throwing Molitav cocktails at them is OK in my opinion.
I exchanged emails with Revkin a year ago and he is NOT logical, he plays to his audience.
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.
Hasn’t it long been part of the stated, though not advertised, goals of greenpeace to rapidly reduce human population by more than 90% ? I have always wondered why people who think there are to many people always think it is other people who are the problem.
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
FWIW, I still agree with Anthony. And I do understand Rush’s “demonstrating absurdity” routine very well, and I make allowances for that. But I think he clipped the curb a bit here.
And let’s not forget that Anthony has been something of a target himself for two years now, so he can see it from both sides.
Rush tends to use the absurd to illustrate the absurd. That said; the comment is in poor taste and I cannot defend Rush’s tact in this case.
I work a board where we handle up to 10,000 political posts per day. I sense an increasingly uncomfortable, contentious, angry, atmosphere in regards to many topics. I do my best to keep some focus on Climate Change / AGW / Cap & Tax , etc. The ‘science’ end of discussion tends to be less volatile than the political areas. Political discussions oft detract from the facts of science, the necessary focus. The path to defeating foolish legislation.
I must admit that sometimes I get edgy, at times rain on my own parade. But never, never, as stormy as Rush’s comment. It would help a lot for stage center celebrities like Rush to keep the presentation environment at low-pressure. We don’t need a tri-cyclonic distraction complete with clowns and elephant dung. We don’t need to hand the other side the key ingredients for a perfect storm with which they can sink the effective armada we currently have working against Cap & Tax, etc.
Hopefully Rush will make an appropriate apology and work to move forward with us.
Michael (17:44:01)
“….and conker control agent”
A piece of string?
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.
Anthony: Was I just a precursor this past weekend to the wrath you are now getting? “We” are not the bad guys. “We” just don’t want to see our country go down base upon fraudulent goals.
“Second, who receives more vituperative comments from the left than Rush?”
That’s easy, Sarah Palin
I thought Rush’s comparison with indoctrinating suicide bombers was valid. Although, he doesn’t fully articulate the comparison.
AGW indoctrination and PC suppression of any dissenting AGW views is rampant in the educational system.
A whole generation is being taught that AGW alarmism is the complete and absolute truth, and is the only path to ecological salvation.
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. 🙂