Limbaugh to NYT Reporter: ‘Why Don’t You Just Go Kill Yourself?’

US News • Views: 4,497

A few weeks ago, New York Times environmental blogger Andrew Revkin made a relatively straightforward observation, that “more children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.” Revkin went on to suggest that family planning and contraception might be an important part of any plan to limit CO2 emissions: Are Condoms the Ultimate Green Technology?

I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation. This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal. But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the population-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the rate of population growth. If giving women a way to limit family size is such a cheap win for emissions, why isn’t it in the mix?

This led Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show today, to compare environmentalists with suicide bombers, and suggest that Andrew Revkin should commit suicide.

FLV Video

LIMBAUGH: 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?

Jump to bottom

364 comments
1 Neutral President  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:56:58pm

YGBSM...

2 Ben G. Hazi  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:58:28pm

Rush, you're a vile, odius bastard...too bad you can't just STFU.

3 Kragar  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:59:27pm

What a douchebag.

4 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:59:31pm

WOW! That is just so wrong...

5 Soundboard Fez  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:59:41pm

If it weren't for Rush, I wouldn't ever have realized that creating voluntary incentives for birth control is just like jihadists strapping explosives onto 3-year-olds. Megadittoes.

/s (did I need that?)

6 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:00:10pm

He's crude for sure... but several Lizards here including myself are want to use the old joke that "the population control advocates should be the first to volunteer."

7 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:00:10pm

This guy, if he ever had one, no longer has a point. He's just freaking out randomly.

8 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:00:33pm

This is fringe in any way you look at it. There is even a group called the voluntary human extinction group, or some such name. It is all bad, all this negativity.

I do not think we will get anywhere good unless we adopt a cheerful, positive attitude.

The human race, with its technology intact, might well deflect the reprise of the dinosaur killing asteroid.

Anyhow, all the extremists need to go to their corners and sit a while.

9 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:00:34pm

Rush is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party since the end of Reconstruction.
///

10 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:00:57pm
Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?

Taunting people about suicide is disgusting and wrong.

11 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:02:02pm

In line with Revkin's thoughts:

Perhaps we should look at the proliferation of Taco Bell's and Chilis' as a source of CO2 emmissions?

/

12 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:02:24pm

Anyone who has read Revkin's writing on the subject of AGW knows that he the among the least "militant" of those writing on the subject, and indeed Revkin gets quite a bit of criticism from the AGW activists for being too kind to the deniers.

But the ditto-heads wouldn't know that. They don't want to know it. The important thing to them is to get their morning HATE☢ON™ serviced by Limbaugh.

13 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:02:39pm

Behold R.L., the default voice of the GOP.

14 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:03:07pm

re: #12 freetoken

Anyone who has read Revkin's writing on the subject of AGW knows that he the among the least "militant" of those writing on the subject, and indeed Revkin gets quite a bit of criticism from the AGW activists for being too kind to the deniers.

But the ditto-heads wouldn't know that. They don't want to know it. The important thing to them is to get their morning HATE☢ON™ serviced by Limbaugh.

Some days I just feel like everyone has strong opinions on how many children I should have when.

15 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:03:10pm

Rush has never reproduced, does he deserve a carbon credit for family planning?

16 Fiery Red XIII  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:03:14pm

Why is it ok? Just like with PETA, they need THEIR insulin to have their lives to fight for the animals...The rest of us can just die. If you really think that a breath is that bad for the planet, then why not ask if it wouldn't be better if we had 1 less person breathing? I am NOT advocating violence, just showing that this may not be a good argument for MMGW people to make.

Red

17 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:03:43pm

re: #8 Ojoe


Anyhow, all the extremists need to go to their corners and sit a while.

You believe Revkin is "fringe" and an extremist?

18 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:03:52pm

re: #13 Ojoe

Behold R.L., the default voice of the GOP.

What an eejit.

19 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:04:13pm

re: #14 SanFranciscoZionist

It galls me, the thought that people are automatically bad for the planet.

20 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:04:22pm

So much for being pro-life, eh Rush?

21 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:04:29pm

re: #15 Alouette

Rush has never reproduced, does he deserve a carbon credit for family planning?

He deserves an award for services rendered on behalf of the human race...

22 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:04:39pm

re: #15 Alouette

Rush has never reproduced, does he deserve a carbon credit for family planning?

If he did he's already used it up with the excess warm CO2 he's expelled into the Golden EIB microphone.

23 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:05:13pm

re: #12 freetoken

Anyone who has read Revkin's writing on the subject of AGW knows that he the among the least "militant" of those writing on the subject, and indeed Revkin gets quite a bit of criticism from the AGW activists for being too kind to the deniers.

But the ditto-heads wouldn't know that. They don't want to know it. The important thing to them is to get their morning HATE☢ON™ serviced by Limbaugh.

Exactly -- Revkin is no radical at all. And the article that prompted this ugly comment from Limbaugh was just simple common sense -- not some kind of crazy proposal to commit genocide to save the planet.

Is Rush Limbaugh getting crazier, or was he always this bad? I've never been a fan, but lately he seems to be going way off the rails to a disturbing degree.

24 bosforus  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:05:29pm
I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation.

Well, I was going to start a family, but I'll just take these sweet carbon credits instead! They're worth about the same.
/

25 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:05:38pm

re: #14 SanFranciscoZionist

Some days I just feel like everyone has strong opinions on how many children I should have when.

We do. We've asked Charles to put up a SFZ reproduction poll soon. /

26 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:05:39pm

re: #17 freetoken

Yes. Within his condom remark is hidden the assumption that people are bad. I think that thought is extreme, and leads to bad places.

27 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:05:56pm

re: #16 Fiery Red XIII

Why is it ok? Just like with PETA, they need THEIR insulin to have their lives to fight for the animals...The rest of us can just die. If you really think that a breath is that bad for the planet, then why not ask if it wouldn't be better if we had 1 less person breathing? I am NOT advocating violence, just showing that this may not be a good argument for MMGW people to make.

Red

Does not logically follow. There's a huge step from 'have fewer children' to 'kill people already living'. Rush is just pretending that there is no difference at all.

28 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:06:01pm

re: #16 Fiery Red XIII

Why is it ok? Just like with PETA, they need THEIR insulin to have their lives to fight for the animals...The rest of us can just die. If you really think that a breath is that bad for the planet, then why not ask if it wouldn't be better if we had 1 less person breathing? I am NOT advocating violence, just showing that this may not be a good argument for MMGW people to make.

Red

Maybe because it morally sick to ask anyone to die? Just a lsight possibility there, heh?

29 Soundboard Fez  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:06:09pm

re: #6 DaddyG

He's crude for sure... but several Lizards here including myself are want to use the old joke that "the population control advocates should be the first to volunteer."

The concept this guy is pitching is silly but it is in fact entirely volunteer.

Rush compares this proposal to Muslims strapping explosives onto toddlers and sending them into a crowd. That's absolutely insane.

30 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:06:58pm

re: #29 Soundboard Fez
Very good point. The hyperbole is thick.

31 Fiery Red XIII  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:07:39pm

Fair enough, I'm just saying I get the point. Not agreeing with all of what Rush said...I've wondered that to myself w/Gore sometimes.

Redre: #27 SanFranciscoZionist

32 Cheechako  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:07:52pm

Rush needs to get back on his meds.

33 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:08:04pm

Again, it has become a terrible article of faith now for good righties to deny AGW.

We see the same play book again and again.

1. They prey on the fact that the average person will not look into the science themselves.

2. They create a false sense of controversy when there is noe and endlessly cherry pick or spout red herrings. My favorite one recently was from Beck pimping his new book about AGW - did you know Beck knows physics? Neither did I...

Beck claimed that heat related deaths have dropped continuously in America since 1920. Ditto heads will happily cluck and murmur that aha, less heat deaths means no warming! Of course even if the stat is correct, I have not fact checked it - it may even be true, it has no bearing on the discussion. Perhaps heat related deaths have dropped since 1920 because of the proliferation of air conditioning and better nutrition and hydration.

3. Then even yesterday, someone posted a link about a paper, not the paper itself, about orbital cylces. Of course the paper was referring to events 140,000 years ago that have no bearing on the present riving. But don't let that get in the way.

Again and again, I have seen deniers here post papers that are legit, only to find they only read one sentence that they think supports them and the rest of the paper utterly debunks the false claim they are making. The opposition does not read in short.

4. If I get cranky it is because of the endless propaganda and stupidity of the other side.

It can get hard sometimes on these boards to distinguish friend from foe. For that I apologize. Sometimes someone can honestly be making a wrong point, for good reasons out of honest misunderstanding. Unfortunately, it is a point I have seen as the preamble to a denier screed a dozen times.

The biggest issue with that here, when not dealing with an out and out denier is the claim that we in the scientific community are not so certain and that the claims made about the impacts of this crisis if left unattended are too sever - that we do not know. Actually we do know. I will keep posting paper after paper to back that up.

If I wrongly snap at someone I apologize. But the truth is there and it is not a pretty one. Unlike the ID debate, lives are very much at stake. So is our whole civilization.

34 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:08:21pm

Just wait...an apologist will be around to tell us that we are simply lacking an educated ear for "satire".

35 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:08:24pm

re: #26 Ojoe

Yes. Within his condom remark is hidden the assumption that people are bad. I think that thought is extreme, and leads to bad places.

This is clearly a case of eisigesis on your part, unless you truly do believe condoms==bad, which I understand certain religion teachings may hold.

36 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:09:03pm

re: #15 Alouette

Rush has never reproduced

Thank Hashem for small miracles.

37 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:10:11pm

It's a pity Rush has to turn everything into some sordid, fact-free attack. Especially when this particular argument could have been easily countered with, you know, facts.

World population growth is already slowing dramatically. The UN estimates that it will plateau around 2050 in the neighborhood of 8 to 9 billion, and will begin to fall thereafter as more and more of the planet achieves a higher standard of living, which for a variety of reasons encourages lower birth rates.

And wherever the problem may lie, it certainly isn't anywhere within the reach of Mr. Revkin's voice. The United States birthrate is too low to sustain it's population; the only reason America's population is growing at all is because of immigration. The same is true throughout pretty much all of Europe. China, of course, has had draconian birth control policies in place for decades, although the "One Child Rule" has recently been relaxed in rural areas, where populations are falling rapidly. It is unlikely that China is anywhere near a positive growth rate.

Africa's population is falling, too, across the entire continent. Here, the problem is sadly familiar: disease in the form of widespread AIDs, and famine induced by inept governance and other problems.

So there's India and other parts of Asia; the Middle East; portions of Central and South America that have positive growth rates. If anyone wants to trim population growth even further, that's who needs to be addressed - not the nearly exclusively US readership of the New York Times.

But instead of spending a half hour of his aide's time doing easy research on this issue, Rush starts telling people to kill themselves and their children. Way to seize the intellectual high ground, asshole.

38 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:10:27pm

re: #36 LudwigVanQuixote

Thank Hashem for small miracles.

I wish he did have children. It could have colored the way he sees certain things. Children have the power to do that, without even trying.

39 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:10:33pm

re: #23 Charles

Exactly -- Revkin is no radical at all. And the article that prompted this ugly comment from Limbaugh was just simple common sense -- not some kind of crazy proposal to commit genocide to save the planet.

It kind of reminds of the demonization of Holdren. Completely distort what was said, then pitch a conniption fit so the kook base is good and riled. People don't have to read it for themselves, or comprehend it for themselves when it's being filtered "so kindly" for them already.

40 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:10:35pm

Rush just demonstrated exactly the sort of response that anyone even hinting at the possibility of government population control can expect. It will be rabid, irrational, and completely sidetrack all other discussion.

I have a hard time believing that Revkin thought it was a good idea to throw this idea into the public arena, but he does work for the NY Times.

41 Coracle  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:10:52pm

re: #26 Ojoe

Yes. Within his condom remark is hidden the assumption that people are bad. I think that thought is extreme, and leads to bad places.

Please. The only 'hidden' assumption is that too many people are bad. And what are they bad for? The planet? No, the planet doesn't care. Too many people are bad for the people. You think 7 billion humans is sustainable on this planet? How about 10 billion? 20?

42 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:11:15pm

re: #35 freetoken

I do not believe condoms per se are bad. I do not like the thought that people are bad. That thought will lead to bad places if you ask me. There are plenty of lefty environmentalists who think people are bad. The number of people I see with this attitude bodes ill if you ask me.

43 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:11:17pm

I'm somewhat defensive on this topic as a father of 7. However, because of our lifestyle the amount of carbon our family emits is probably miniscule compared to most families half our size. We also garden, plant trees, commute using public transportation and donate our lightly used stuff to others in need.

I am not opposed to birth control however and in emerging nations where large families are used as insurance against poverty voluntary birth control combined with nutrition, nedical care and hygene could save a lot of suffering.

44 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:11:18pm

The saddest thing, to me, is that THIS is the voice of the current Republican Party. Where are our leaders?

45 aagcobb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:11:23pm

re: #19 Ojoe

It galls me, the thought that people are automatically bad for the planet.

Too much of anything is automatically bad. Encouraging birth control seems sensible to me.

46 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:11:26pm

re: #19 Ojoe

It galls me, the thought that people are automatically bad for the planet.

It galls me when I'm urged to have children young (too late), by people who think everyone is affluent, or when I'm yattered at about how Jewish women ought to be having eight kids apiece, or lectured about how, when I'm a mommy, I'll want to be an at-home mommy because no one else can take such good care of your precious little bundle of joy. None of these people are planning to pay my rent or get my kids their oatmeal. It's an attempt to do social engineering by guilt.

OK, rant over.

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:11:59pm

re: #20 Sharmuta

So much for being pro-life, eh Rush?

/But it was satire!

48 Pawn of the Oppressor  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:12:19pm

How much CO2 did that ridiculous rant generate?

What is it with radio guys? This business of Beck and Limbaugh being utterly ignorant, and deliberately going off the deep end about nothing - is this a unique disease endemic to the medium, or is it a common human dysfunction (say, something out of the DSM IV), inflicted on all of us via radio?

49 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:12:24pm

re: #13 Ojoe

Behold R.L., the default voice of the GOP.

Defaulty more like.

50 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:12:46pm

re: #23 Charles

Exactly -- Revkin is no radical at all. And the article that prompted this ugly comment from Limbaugh was just simple common sense -- not some kind of crazy proposal to commit genocide to save the planet.

Is Rush Limbaugh getting crazier, or was he always this bad? I've never been a fan, but lately he seems to be going way off the rails to a disturbing degree.

Honestly, I think he's always been like this.

51 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:13:24pm

re: #25 DaddyG

We do. We've asked Charles to put up a SFZ reproduction poll soon. /

Well, you guys are entitled...you're the lizards, after all.

52 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:13:29pm

re: #45 aagcobb

Too much of anything is automatically bad. Encouraging birth control seems sensible to me.

Too much moderation? /

53 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:13:34pm

re: #23 Charles

Exactly -- Revkin is no radical at all. And the article that prompted this ugly comment from Limbaugh was just simple common sense -- not some kind of crazy proposal to commit genocide to save the planet.

Is Rush Limbaugh getting crazier, or was he always this bad? I've never been a fan, but lately he seems to be going way off the rails to a disturbing degree.

He's more desperate than I've ever seen him. He used to be confident, but now he's petulant, whiny, angry, and wheedling. He still occasionally sees essentials that others don't because he is pretty intelligent; there was a five minute segment on his show on health care bill machinations today that was good. When he sticks to political facts, and those current issues he does well. When he wanders into the paranoid culture wars he's just going offnote. It's disappointing and depressing.

54 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:13:51pm

re: #16 Fiery Red XIII

Why is it ok? Just like with PETA, they need THEIR insulin to have their lives to fight for the animals...The rest of us can just die. If you really think that a breath is that bad for the planet, then why not ask if it wouldn't be better if we had 1 less person breathing? I am NOT advocating violence, just showing that this may not be a good argument for MMGW people to make.

Red

I have no idea what you're attempting to argue here. And whatever it is, the argument isn't helped by the use of demonstrably false analogy - insulin used by diabetics, which seems to be the crux of your counter-argument, is produced pretty much entirely by genetically modified bacteria, and has been for many years. I can't remember the last time I saw a vial of pig or beef insulin; I'm not even sure that it's made anymore.

55 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:14:08pm

re: #41 Coracle

No, the assumption in effect works out in many people's minds that people themselves are bad. I get that idea coming at me, as raw as that, from under teen age boys in the scout troop; they get it from their folks. I do not think it is good.

56 wrenchwench  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:15:01pm

re: #14 SanFranciscoZionist

Some days I just feel like everyone has strong opinions on how many children I should have when.

I strongly feel that you should have as many or as few children as you want, whenever you want.

I was saddened when a relative of mine admired me for not having any children. She has two, and now four grandchildren. She was complimenting me, based on my lack of negative input to the planet, yet I felt bad for her because she sees her offspring as, in some way, not good.

57 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:15:12pm

re: #40 CyanSnowHawk

Rush just demonstrated exactly the sort of response that anyone even hinting at the possibility of government population control can expect. It will be rabid, irrational, and completely sidetrack all other discussion.

I have a hard time believing that Revkin thought it was a good idea to throw this idea into the public arena, but he does work for the NY Times.

Come on!

Read Revkin's piece. He does not suggest any kind of governmental population control at all. He mentions "baby-avoidance carbon credits" and "giving women a way to limit family size."

These are voluntary suggestions, and he even makes it clear that he isn't seriously proposing it, just bringing it up for discussion.

Good. Grief.

58 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:15:31pm

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist
There's a Jewish mother and guilt joke in there ...But I'll not go there out of respect for your mood this afternoon !
OK? LOL

59 aagcobb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:15:42pm

re: #52 DaddyG

Too much moderation? /

Yes, every now and then you need to do something a little extreme, or you might as well be dead.

60 middy  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:15:48pm

The major problem with the idea of limiting population growth through family planning to save the earth is that only the intelligent and informed are going to do so, while the ignorant and stupid keep multiplying willy nilly... Pretty soon we'll have a net decrease in the average IQ and then what? A whole lot of little Rush Limbaughs running around, that's what!

61 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:15:52pm

re: #41 Coracle

Please. The only 'hidden' assumption is that too many people are bad. And what are they bad for? The planet? No, the planet doesn't care. Too many people are bad for the people. You think 7 billion humans is sustainable on this planet? How about 10 billion? 20?

Pox humanus huh?

62 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:16:37pm

When I first came to Germany, I thought I might get a bit politically involved, even though I cannot vote here, and looked into participating in various activities the Green party was planning.

That weekend they had two protest actions going on in the Frankfurt area: one against a roadbuilding project and the other against the ICE train line...

I decided the best was to support them was just to stay home.

Although in retrospect, I suppose I could've cycled to one of them...

63 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:16:41pm

re: #23 Charles

it's the whole st.louis rams thing,rush was rebuffed,and now he's gonna show us.expect more of this in the future,at least until he pushes the envelope too far.

64 researchok  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:17:29pm

While I'm no fan of Limbaugh, he is being taken out of context, in a way.

For the most part, the western world have declining birth rates. Third world countries on the other hand have exploding birth rates.

Further, western nations can afford to have the fewer children they are having. In contrast, third world nations are find it increasingly difficult to feed and take care of their populations. Revkin ought to have made that point.

Birth rates are a lot like CO2 industrial emissions. Even if western nations were to have even smaller families or no families, CO2 emissions would still rise because of the exploding third world population boom.

65 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:17:57pm

Rush is a symptom as are commentators on the right and left that the political discourse in America is getting more polarized and shrill. Either party out of power in the last few decades seems to give silent consent to the fringe and in some cases encourages bad behavior.

This is bad. I believe it is also why Charles is catching hell from the far right. It happens to politicians too. Lieberman and Zell Miller are great examples of what the far left can do to a decent politician.

The ability to have this bad behavior spread worldwide instantly via the web exaggerates this even more.

15 minutes of notariety for everyone!

I honestly don't know the solution.

66 exelwood  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:18:12pm

Yeah, Limbaugh, didn't he call some people white n***s a few years ago? I can't believe this guy is still on the air!!

67 aagcobb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:18:20pm

re: #57 Charles


These are voluntary suggestions.

Didn't you watch Beck downstairs, Charles? Volunteerism is a communist plot!

68 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:18:55pm

re: #62 ralphieboy

When I first came to Germany, I thought I might get a bit politically involved, even though I cannot vote here, and looked into participating in various activities the Green party was planning.

That weekend they had two protest actions going on in the Frankfurt area: one against a roadbuilding project and the other against the ICE train line...

I decided the best was to support them was just to stay home.

Although in retrospect, I suppose I could've cycled to one of them...

Now, considering how much rail travel in Europe takes a lot of stress off of the environment, why would the German Green party be against a rail line.

I been all over Europe, and I wish we had such good rail coverage here in the states.

(Waiting for a German Green Party NIMBY excuse in 5,4,3,2,1..)

69 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:19:12pm

re: #60 middy

The major problem with the idea of limiting population growth through family planning to save the earth is that only the intelligent and informed are going to do so, while the ignorant and stupid keep multiplying willy nilly... Pretty soon we'll have a net decrease in the average IQ and then what? A whole lot of little Rush Limbaughs running around, that's what!

Who are you calling ignorant and stupid? I have 9 kids and 23 grandkids.

My plan is to reproduce Zionist minions and take over.

70 Pawn of the Oppressor  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:19:13pm

re: #60 middy

Paraphrasing the late George Carlin, who we miss, because he was always at his best when a Democrat was in office -

"Did you ever notice that the people who are against voluntary family planning are the people you'd never want to f-ck in the first place?"

71 cenotaphium  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:19:16pm

re: #8 Ojoe

This is fringe in any way you look at it. There is even a group called the voluntary human extinction group, or some such name. It is all bad, all this negativity.

Hold on now.. voluntary human extinction isn't a suicide cult; while based on the arguably nutty Gaia hypothesis it's simply about choosing not to breed. You'd be free to raise as many children as you want, seeing as how we've got a large number of unwanted ones.

72 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:19:53pm

Now as to a reality that many on the right will have strong ideological issues with, the effects of a growing population are directly in collision with the effects of AGW.

Whether you like it or not, AGW will limit the amount of available food and fresh water and housing on this planet. The planet really is finite and a growing populace will eventually bump into a resource limit if we destroy our resources. This is a fact that can not be escaped.

Now how soon will it happen.

Best estimates and predictions so far have a 2-3 meter raise in sea level 100-150 years from now if things do not change in the next several decades.

That alone takes out much of the coastline of the world. This also happens to be where most of the worlds major cities are located.

In the meantime, food production will plummet.

The oceans are already drastically overfished and will become carbon saturated leading to anoxia. In other words, mas extinctions in the oceans because the fish can't breathe means no fish to eat.

The breadbaskets of the world, think American mid west, will not be able to produce nearly as much food because of less rain.

The places in the world that depend on melt water for fresh water will no longer have them. Again we are seeing the effect now. The people currently most hard hit are Indians in South American highlands, so most white folks don't know or care, however, it will happen in places like Arizona too by mid century.

So, if there is far less food, far less fresh water, and well many displaced people from flooded cites, yet there are more people, what does that mean?

Leave it to Rush to make an angry quip as a way to completely not talk about the real problem.

The man is a menace.

I am rapidly coming to Hansen's view, that in the future, when the effects of this are obvious even to the most ignorant, men like Rush and Beck, should be tried for criminally leading people to their dooms for the sake of profit.

73 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:19:58pm

re: #60 middy

The major problem with the idea of limiting population growth through family planning to save the earth is that only the intelligent and informed are going to do so, while the ignorant and stupid keep multiplying willy nilly... Pretty soon we'll have a net decrease in the average IQ and then what? A whole lot of little Rush Limbaughs running around, that's what!

Well, that's an argument implied by The Bell Curve. The problem with it is that it's never been possible to disentangle any genetic component of intelligence; nurture plays an enormous role in a quality that is inherently difficult to measure.

74 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:20:41pm

re: #66 exelwood

Yeah, Limbaugh, didn't he call some people white n***s a few years ago? I can't believe this guy is still on the air!!

He was quoting Congressmen Byrd...The ex Klansmen!

75 Coracle  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:20:47pm

re: #55 Ojoe

No, the assumption in effect works out in many people's minds that people themselves are bad. I get that idea coming at me, as raw as that, from under teen age boys in the scout troop; they get it from their folks. I do not think it is good.

Then you and they are grossly misinterpreting messages like these. I'm know there are some radicals who do indeed think "people is bad" but this is so obviously not Revkin's message one has to work to make it so.

76 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:21:00pm

re: #71 cenotaphium

The VHE idea is a slippery slope, you may imagine what some minds would do with it.

77 simoom  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:21:01pm

Limbaugh seems to be having a problem with reporters in general lately:

Youtube Video
Limbaugh to CNN's Carol Costello: You know what? Carol you need to go sit on a fire hydrant and, and, you know, improve your day.
78 Land Shark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:21:21pm

Mind you, environmentalist types are only concerned with the carbon emissions of only ONE species, as in the human species. As if elephants, tigers, whales, etc. did not breathe out CO2 too. And let's not forget all those greenhouse emissions these animals put out throughout a lifetime of farting! Humans are outnumbered by several orders of magnitude when one totals up all the other animals living on Earth.

And the forests, those damn forests put out a lot of CO2 too. And what about those volcanoes that put out more "greenhouse" gases in a single eruption than humans have since the dawn of industrialization?

79 ryannon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:21:53pm

re: #68 Walter L. Newton

Now, considering how much rail travel in Europe takes a lot of stress off of the environment, why would the German Green party be against a rail line.

I been all over Europe, and I wish we had such good rail coverage here in the states.

(Waiting for a German Green Party NIMBY excuse in 5,4,3,2,1..)

Offhand, I'd say there was an issue of cutting down trees or a rare insect in the bushes along the projected right-of-way.

80 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:22:02pm

re: #60 middy

The major problem with the idea of limiting population growth through family planning to save the earth is that only the intelligent and informed are going to do so, while the ignorant and stupid keep multiplying willy nilly...

You've been reading The Marching Morons haven't you?

81 Coracle  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:22:03pm

re: #61 Walter L. Newton

Pox humanus huh?

Your words, not mine.

82 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:22:24pm

re: #6 DaddyG

He's crude for sure... but several Lizards here including myself are wont to use the old joke that "the population control advocates should be the first to volunteer."

Yes, it is the same sort of jab as the "chickenhawk" smear, and has the same flaws.

83 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:22:31pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

The problem, LVQ, is that the rants of Limbaugh has nothing to do with AGW, really. It's about the need to get an emotional rush that comes from a psychological state of anger. Limbaugh would rage against kittens, if indeed there was an audience of ditto-heads out there who felt the need to hate kittens.

84 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:08pm

re: #68 Walter L. Newton

Now, considering how much rail travel in Europe takes a lot of stress off of the environment, why would the German Green party be against a rail line.

I been all over Europe, and I wish we had such good rail coverage here in the states.

(Waiting for a German Green Party NIMBY excuse in 5,4,3,2,1..)

No one ever said a Green Party protest ever had to make sense. Gotta wonder how many at that protest were more concerned about their property values than the environment.

85 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:09pm

re: #80 DaddyG

You've been reading The Marching Morons haven't you?

Or maybe watching Idiocracy?

86 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:12pm

re: #81 Coracle

Your words, not mine.

Correct.

87 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:17pm

re: #64 researchok

For the most part, the western world have declining birth rates. Third world countries on the other hand have exploding birth rates.

Wrong: birthrates across the world are going down with few exceptions, and you can expect that trend to continue as previously third world countries urbanize and modernize. It's going to take continued cheap, plentiful energy to get there however. If we don't want to melt the icecaps, you need to add Clean to cheap and plentiful.

Click the play button on this wonderful chart after it loads that demonstrates the beauty of technology, urbanization, and high energy society

88 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:37pm

re: #68 Walter L. Newton

Now, considering how much rail travel in Europe takes a lot of stress off of the environment, why would the German Green party be against a rail line.

I been all over Europe, and I wish we had such good rail coverage here in the states.

(Waiting for a German Green Party NIMBY excuse in 5,4,3,2,1..)

There was some problem about the ICE line running through some protected biotopes or the like. I am all for the ICE, it is a wicked cool way to travel: Frankfurt-Berlin in less than 4 hours, you can't get there by plane any quicker from downtown to downtown.

89 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:47pm

re: #78 Land Shark

Are you missing the sarc tag, "/", or should I down ding you?

90 Locker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:48pm

Seems to be the same old routine that made Rush famous. Day in, day out, feed red meat to your rabid listeners and bask in their admiration and glory.

91 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:50pm

re: #75 Coracle

I myself do not misinterpret the idea of carrying capacity. But I have to do work to correct the self image of some young people who somehow begin to feel guilty about their existence.

92 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:23:55pm

re: #66 exelwood

I believe that was a different commentator, but I can't remember who.

93 bloodnok  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:24:26pm

As a survivor of a family suicide I can not begin to express how angry it makes me when people cavalierly use suicide as a joke, take a swing at someone or use it to manipulate.

People have no reason have to curb their language around me, I'm well aware. But there are boundaries to human decency and common empathy for quite possibly the worst thing in the world -both for those who are in such pain as to contemplate it or for those that are left behind.

94 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:24:32pm

This is what happens when you take a segment of the population that believes what they are told and rejects evidence- whether it extends to religion and science or even current events. This segment is useful in providing charlatans with a living. Unfortunately, what those charlatans are peddling these days is a backwards-looking political movement. The positive news is, it isn't working.

95 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:24:43pm

re: #88 ralphieboy

There was some problem about the ICE line running through some protected biotopes or the like. I am all for the ICE, it is a wicked cool way to travel: Frankfurt-Berlin in less than 4 hours, you can't get there by plane any quicker from downtown to downtown.

Just wondering, gotta love the Greens. They will bite their noses to spite their faces every time.

96 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:24:55pm

re: #77 simoom

he never seemed that nasty on a personal level before.throw bombs? sure,but he used to seem calmer around the press.the pressure must be getting to him.god's gonna want that intelligence back that he loaned him.

97 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:25:21pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

I am rapidly coming to Hansen's view, that in the future, when the effects of this are obvious even to the most ignorant, men like Rush and Beck, should be tried for criminally leading people to their dooms for the sake of profit.

This is why I dinged you down. Hansen is dead wrong in this aspect. They should be mocked, they should be ignored, but to criminally try them is just wrong, IMHO.

98 cliffster  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:25:23pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

So, if there is far less food, far less fresh water, and well many displaced people from flooded cites, yet there are more people, what does that mean?

IF this happens, then people will die by the hundreds of millions, technology will be wiped out and human civilization be sent back centuries if it survives at all. It doesn't really matter, just things keeping in balance. You take it personally because you are one of these humans. The dinosaurs would probably have taken things personally as well, if they had feelings.

99 Pawn of the Oppressor  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:25:53pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

I am rapidly coming to Hansen's view, that in the future, when the effects of this are obvious even to the most ignorant, men like Rush and Beck, should be tried for criminally leading people to their dooms for the sake of profit.

Isn't there something in Jewish teaching about false prophets? I'm being serious. I have a vague memory of reading something in the Tanakh on the subject, but I can't recall specifics (Another reason why I'd make such a lousy Jew - I can't remember all the details).

I don't think Rush falls under my personal interpretation of Amalek just yet, but he's getting close...

100 Coracle  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:26:30pm

re: #91 Ojoe

I myself do not misinterpret the idea of carrying capacity. But I have to do work to correct the self image of some young people who somehow begin to feel guilty about their existence.

That's called "adolescence". It's self curing.

101 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:26:37pm

One of the distinctly sticky issues with advocating birth control (voluntary or otherwise) is that it hits emerging populations (read brown and yellow people on the other side of the world) disproportionately. It is still an insurance policy for families in poor and/or rural regions to have large families they cannot support knowing that they are insulated from high mortality rates. Advocating birth control can slam up against religious beliefs and very real fears for those families.

In the west we have pretty stable and even declining population rates related to our affluence, not in spite of it.

102 Cheechako  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:26:51pm

re: #78 Land Shark

And the forests, those damn forests put out a lot of CO2 too.


I hope that was sarcasm because that's not true.

103 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:26:58pm

Beck and Rush have declined to the point that they are just filling air time between commercials. The more people they can get to listen to their twisted rants, whether because they share their views are or are merely there for the entertainment factor, the more they can command for advertising time, which is the product that they sell.

104 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:27:07pm

re: #100 Coracle

It is not in all cases self-curing.

105 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:27:23pm

re: #80 DaddyG

You've been reading The Marching Morons haven't you?

I was trying to remember the name of that story!
Thanks!

106 bosforus  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:28:03pm

re: #98 cliffster

The dinosaurs would probably have taken things personally as well, if they had feelings.


Are you saying they don't? That's just hurtful.

107 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:28:11pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

[snip]

I am rapidly coming to Hansen's view, that in the future, when the effects of this are obvious even to the most ignorant, men like Rush and Beck, should be tried for criminally leading people to their dooms for the sake of profit.

Where as I consider your scientific views to be very intelligent and informative, you're concepts of freedom of speech are down right oppressive.

I hope the tide never turns when people will start suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to speak you mind.

108 Land Shark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:28:27pm

re: #89 freetoken

While I am being sarcastic, it's to point out the ludicrous nature of the man made climate change crowd. Even if all I did was point out the truth. So if you buy the man made climate change thing, feel free to downding to your heart's content.

109 brent  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:28:36pm

#78 other animals...

That brings you back to cows and deforestation, tho... How many millions of acres of woods are being taken down for wood, paper, land to raise cattle? We're really doing damage by that, as much as I hate to associate myself with the Rainforest crowd.

I hate patchoulli.

110 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:28:40pm

re: #104 Ojoe

It is not in all cases self-curing.

And that is the way it has always been. The problem of imagined "guilt" is hardly new nor is it the creation of environmentalists or population control proponents.

111 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:28:52pm

re: #23 Charles

I listened to him way, way back in Sacramento. Reagan days I think. Or soon after. He was great under Bush 41. And no, he was not nearly so crazy. His time was spent more on sensible if criticisms, and what I liked At The Time frequent calls to live for excellence.
In my opinion he has fallen into the ratings race feedback loop I have posted a time or three.
I was a huge fan. His outrageous stuff was parodies and skits. His rock bump music was a first, his handling of callers was impeccable. He has outlived his arc of relevance, and descended into rank foolishness. Not just the racial or presidential stuff either. There was in inverse relationship between his quality and his station count. The ego has crashed and burned.

112 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:29:08pm

re: #83 freetoken

The problem, LVQ, is that the rants of Limbaugh has nothing to do with AGW, really. It's about the need to get an emotional rush that comes from a psychological state of anger. Limbaugh would rage against kittens, if indeed there was an audience of ditto-heads out there who felt the need to hate kittens.

Yes he would, however, it is not a coincidence that Rush and BEck and the other wingnuts are ramping up their AGW screeds before the Copenhagen conference.

Again, lives really are at stake.

These people for utterly selfish and stupid reasons are purposefully distorting and discrediting science that is essential to be understood by the vast bulk of people.

Industry will not just go green unless they think there is a real market for it. In fact they will fight having to spend money to change tooth and nail. We see it in congress everyday.

Governments will not change this and step in - they are the only ones with the power to actually effect the needed changes unless the people are behind it. In a very real sense, Rush and craven hucksters like him, are on the frontline of the conflict. They are delaying any meaningful action. Those delays cost lives.

113 cliffster  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:29:26pm

re: #107 Walter L. Newton

Where as I consider your scientific views to be very intelligent and informative, you're concepts of freedom of speech are down right oppressive.

I hope the tide never turns when people will start suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to speak you mind.

A lot of economists would be getting locked up right about now if that policy were adopted.

114 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:29:44pm

re: #110 freetoken

We do not need more of it.

BBL - to work -

115 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:29:45pm

Ok, that's a deal I can't pass up.

116 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:29:50pm

re: #108 Land Shark

Even if all I did was point out the truth.

All you pointed out is that you like to repeat talking points and not dig for the truth.

117 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:29:52pm

Like Revkin, I am no radical. In fact, if anything, I am the opposite in that I agree with the late Herman Kahn that the Earth could eventually support several times its current population. However, the current exponential growth rate simply does not allow time for technology, infrastructure, politics, and even culture itself to keep pace.

It is no accident that the most chaotic parts of the world are also the ones with the highest rates of population growth. In Mexico, for instance, the government opens a new elementary school every 4 hours, but it isn't enough. The exponential growth rate in the Muslim world injects millions of new minds into what is essentially a medieval culture. A hundred years ago, Musllim scholars in Cairo and Constantinople scoffed at the Wahhabis and modernism was the wave of the future. They could not have anticipated that their message would be overwhelmed in a tidal wave of new people far beyond the reach of modernist thought.

Rush Limbaugh is a fool, a backward and ignorant demogogue, for attempting to dismiss population control as the product of tree-hugger elitists.

118 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:30:26pm

re: #102 Cheechako

And the forests, those damn forests put out a lot of CO2 too.

I hope that was sarcasm because that's not true.

Well, it is, actually. Plants produce CO2 just like animals do, using nearly identical metabolic pathways, mainly when they break sugars down for use to "power" their cells.

Plants also consume CO2 and produce oxygen during photosynthesis, but this process happens in parallel with their CO2 production, not in place of it.

There is a net gain in oxygen production when all is working well, but plants do produce significant amounts of CO2.

119 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:30:49pm

re: #57 Charles

Come on!

Read Revkin's piece. He does not suggest any kind of governmental population control at all. He mentions "baby-avoidance carbon credits" and "giving women a way to limit family size."

These are voluntary suggestions, and he even makes it clear that he isn't seriously proposing it, just bringing it up for discussion.

Good. Grief.

Slow down Charles, I was pointing out how Rush exemplified the irrational reaction, not defending it.

I am surprised that Revkin thought, even when couched in the language of "this is just a thought experiment and not an actual proposal," that this idea was a good one throw into the fray. Rush won't be the only one to react hysterically.

120 vxbush  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:30:56pm

While Rivkin's paper may be a thought experiment, I don't like the idea that children are simply the measure of carbon they expel. The idea of "carbon credits" for kids is pretty disturbing to me, actually.

121 Pawn of the Oppressor  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:31:15pm

re: #111 Rightwingconspirator

He actually had a late-night TV show in the early Clinton years which I found pretty entertaining, as a young adolescent. There was even a newsletter with real political information. Back then he seemed fairly sensible, albeit over-the-top on occasion; kinda like how Glenn Beck seemed sane before he had his own Fox show.

122 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:31:33pm

BBL, play nicely!

123 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:32:03pm

re: #78 Land Shark

Downding for reciting the volcano lie.

124 Locker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:32:35pm

re: #121 Pawn of the Oppressor

He actually had a late-night TV show in the early Clinton years which I found pretty entertaining, as a young adolescent. There was even a newsletter with real political information. Back then he seemed fairly sensible, albeit over-the-top on occasion; kinda like how Glenn Beck seemed sane before he had his own Fox show.

I think I remember that to be honest. A bunch of young, male yuppies all dressed exactly alike in white shirts and ties. I believe they even called themselves "ditto heads" to signify their feelings on anything and everything Rush says and believes... "ditto"...

125 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:32:56pm

re: #97 Honorary Yooper

This is why I dinged you down. Hansen is dead wrong in this aspect. They should be mocked, they should be ignored, but to criminally try them is just wrong, IMHO.

re: #107 Walter L. Newton

Where as I consider your scientific views to be very intelligent and informative, you're concepts of freedom of speech are down right oppressive.

I hope the tide never turns when people will start suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to speak you mind.

There are limitations on freedom of speech for the general good.

You can not falsely advertise. You can not libel or slander. You can not shout fire in a crowded theater etc...

You can not do these things because you unjustly harm innocent people and create a public danger at worst. You can not incite riots either.

Rush is falsely leading people to their deaths.

If you could punish him for the much lesser offenses listed above, then it follows we should do the same in the much more sever case.

126 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:33:02pm

All of you anti-AGW freaks step back a moment and look at the bigger picture for a second: Let's suppose that the ice caps aren't going to melt, that the temp is only going to go up a degree or two and some coastal areas are going to be affected.

What's an average temperature raise of one or two degrees going to do to all of the summer air conditioning bills in Red states?

127 Merryweather  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:33:20pm

re: #78 Land Shark

Did no one bother to teach you about photosynthesis at school?

128 researchok  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:33:36pm

re: #87 Thanos

Wrong: birthrates across the world are going down with few exceptions, and you can expect that trend to continue as previously third world countries urbanize and modernize. It's going to take continued cheap, plentiful energy to get there however. If we don't want to melt the icecaps, you need to add Clean to cheap and plentiful.

Click the play button on this wonderful chart after it loads that demonstrates the beauty of technology, urbanization, and high energy society

Thanks for the link. Lots to research now.

Is the data clear? See this as an example of confusing info.

129 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:33:37pm

re: #120 vxbush

Revkin's mention of population control isn't about animals (which includes humans) breathing.

130 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:33:45pm

re: #125 LudwigVanQuixote

There are limitations on freedom of speech for the general good.

You can not falsely advertise. You can not libel or slander. You can not shout fire in a crowded theater etc...

You can not do these things because you unjustly harm innocent people and create a public danger at worst. You can not incite riots either.

Rush is falsely leading people to their deaths.

If you could punish him for the much lesser offenses listed above, then it follows we should do the same in the much more sever case.

Sorry, Rush is not breaking any laws.

131 Kragar  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:34:12pm

Village 'witches' beaten in India

Five women were paraded naked, beaten and forced to eat human excrement by villagers after being branded as witches in India's Jharkhand state.

Local police said the victims were Muslim widows who had been labelled as witches by a local cleric.

The incident occurred on Sunday in a remote village in Deoghar district.

Correspondents say the abuse of women who are branded as witches is common, but rare footage of the incident has caused outrage across India.

Police went to Pattharghatia village after being informed about the incident by a group of villagers.

132 Land Shark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:34:14pm

re: #116 freetoken

Trust me, I've read quite a bit on the subject. And both sides of this debate are knee deep in talking points. But just because something might be a talking point doesn't mean it isn't true.

133 right_wing2  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:34:44pm

Rush- illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

134 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:35:04pm

re: #132 Land Shark

A lie is still a lie. You're only off by a factor of a thousand on your volcano claim.

135 Pawn of the Oppressor  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:35:24pm

re: #124 Locker

I think I remember that to be honest. A bunch of young, male yuppies all dressed exactly alike in white shirts and ties. I believe they even called themselves "ditto heads" to signify their feelings on anything and everything Rush says and believes... "ditto"...

I don't remember that, but I do remember him sitting at a desk and making jokes. He'd play clips of Democrats giving speeches and then make fun of them. I remember one clip of Ted Kennedy giving a speech, trailing off a sentence into some strange, guttural, half-drunken noise, and then Rush imitating him.

(Hey, I was 14 and when you're a Republican-leaning kid living in Massachusetts, that stuff is funny...)

136 Locker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:35:35pm

re: #132 Land Shark

Trust me, I've read quite a bit on the subject. And both sides of this debate are knee deep in talking points. But just because something might be a talking point doesn't mean it isn't true.

Doesn't mean it is true either... you might want to think about that as it seems your reading on the subject has been extremely one sided and biased against basic science.

137 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:35:45pm

re: #132 Land Shark

Trust me, I've read quite a bit on the subject. And both sides of this debate are knee deep in talking points. But just because something might be a talking point doesn't mean it isn't true.

Ant links to your volcano facts.

138 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:35:50pm

re: #78 Land Shark

I'll call you out on this. Show your numbers to prove who emits how much co2.

139 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:35:53pm

re: #132 Land Shark

But just because something might be a talking point doesn't mean it isn't true.

WRT the statement you made, however, the fact remains your talking points were false.

140 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:36:00pm

re: #125 LudwigVanQuixote
Careful, you are very close to advocating punishing Rush for the thought crimes against AGW predictions of mass death.

141 rurality  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:36:03pm

re: #57 Charles

RL has always willfully misinterpreted or misrepresented articles, done his racist/sexist spew, played to white victimhood. I think it is fascinating that folks seem to finally be hearing him. When Bush was in the WH and being attacked, perhaps having RL lash back, with skewed info, didnt seem to register. It served a purpose? When he would do his race baiting, using Sharpton or Jackson as his foils or targets, maybe it didn't offend because most found those two offensive. He hasnt changed, think LGF has. What finally brought the house of illusions down? The myths of R, fiscal responsibility, neocon philosophy keeps us safe, Global Warming or intelligent design, Sarah Palin, ugly or clueless racism?

142 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:36:19pm

re: #128 researchok

Your link is from 1996 and reporting the leftover bow wave of the old trend. Play around with that chart, it has drop downs where you can put in different factors (the arrows beside the legend for the axis) Some things are amazingly different, and people haven't realized or recognized it yet.

143 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:36:23pm

re: #124 Locker

now now,it was a mixed crowd.(men and women)and yes they did dress well.(you had to wear a jacket/tie to get in the studio.)contrast that to the style of dress for some of the other audiences of shows running at the time.
not defending rush,but lets not get petty.

144 Land Shark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:36:32pm

re: #127 Merryweather

Yes, they did. Plants emmit carbon dioxide and oxygen, and when they die and decompose they emmit all kinds of "greenhouse" gases. Just like animals do.

145 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:36:46pm

re: #140 DaddyG

Careful, you are very close to advocating punishing Rush for the thought crimes against AGW predictions of mass death.

He is advocating punishing Rush for his opinions.

146 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:36:57pm

re: #93 bloodnok

As a survivor of a family suicide I can not begin to express how angry it makes me when people cavalierly use suicide as a joke, take a swing at someone or use it to manipulate.

People have no reason have to curb their language around me, I'm well aware. But there are boundaries to human decency and common empathy for quite possibly the worst thing in the world -both for those who are in such pain as to contemplate it or for those that are left behind.

{Nok} It's truly not fodder for jokes, insults or manipulations. Only an uncaring jerk would do such a thing. It demeans the people who have lived through it, and insults the memories of their loved ones. It's indecent to wish such a thing on other people.

147 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:37:37pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

The people currently most hard hit are Indians in South American highlands, so most white folks don't know or care, however, it will happen in places like Arizona too by mid century.

I beg your fucking pardon!

Leave that shit for DU and DKos.

148 vxbush  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:37:45pm

re: #129 freetoken

Revkin's mention of population control isn't about animals (which includes humans) breathing.

My mistake, then. But it's still weighing a child against the amount of CO2 s/he uses/consumes/creates, as if that is the only thing that matters. That minimizes life.

149 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:38:16pm

Rush likes to portray "environmental whackos" as people who would have us all go back to living in lean-tos and wiping our butts with dried leaves.

But true environmentalism is not about regression, it is about technological progress: building more energy-efficient technolgies and getting away from the rather archaic means of generating energy by burning trees (or their fossilized remnants)

And it can lead to a higher standard of living for all.

150 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:38:22pm

re: #108 Land Shark

So if you buy the man made climate change thing, feel free to downding to your heart's content.

Done!

151 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:38:50pm

Rush Limbaugh's specific statements are probably less an issue than the very fact of his importance.
This person never finished college, he never served in the military, he has never held an elective office. Yet he is the defacto leader of the Republican Party, setting the agenda and framing the debate even when he doesn't promote specific candidates.

The media-industrial complex has well and truly hijacked the political process in this country. This started many years ago with the counterculture left. It has now spread to the right in a far more obvious and direct form.

152 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:39:02pm

re: #125 LudwigVanQuixote

VERY slippery slope, there
So any scientist that has contrary views to yours on GW should also be criminally charged?
What is the 'standard" of not having an opposing view before being charged ? 50% plus 1 of the populace?

153 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:39:22pm

re: #133 right_wing2

Rush- illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Zactically

154 researchok  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:39:24pm

re: #142 Thanos

Your link is from 1996 and reporting the leftover bow wave of the old trend. Play around with that chart, it has drop downs where you can put in different factors (the arrows beside the legend for the axis) Some things are amazingly different, and people haven't realized or recognized it yet.

See this fertility chart as well.

Seems to me foreign aid has an impact. That aid includes medical, educational and access to abortion as well.

155 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:39:26pm

re: #119 CyanSnowHawk

I am surprised that Revkin thought, even when couched in the language of "this is just a thought experiment and not an actual proposal," that this idea was a good one throw into the fray. Rush won't be the only one to react hysterically.

I don't get why this should be controversial at all. It seems like completely straightforward common sense to me. Why should anyone get upset if other people choose to use contraception, for whatever reason? And why should anyone get upset if voluntary incentives to use contraception are offered to people?

156 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:39:40pm

re: #99 Pawn of the Oppressor

Isn't there something in Jewish teaching about false prophets? I'm being serious. I have a vague memory of reading something in the Tanakh on the subject, but I can't recall specifics (Another reason why I'd make such a lousy Jew - I can't remember all the details).

I don't think Rush falls under my personal interpretation of Amalek just yet, but he's getting close...

The test for a false prophet is if he predicts a blessing from Hashem (at a certain time) and it does not come to pass. A punishment can always be withheld by tsuva (repentance) but a blessing is never withheld once promised.

The penalty is stoning.

As to Amalek, that is something else entirely. While it was once an actual tribe, in modern usage (since the middle ages commentaries) Amalek is more of a spiritual and mental state of unredeemable evil. Amalek is the very embodiment of evil and the heart of gleeful malice and unrighteousness. Nazis, Jihadis and Klansmen pretty well fall under the label of Amalek in the modern sense of the word.

No, the Jewish law that most pertains to Rush is the notion of not putting a stumbling block before the blind. The law is very much about not conning people to their detriment. Bearing false witness applies as well. Being a talebearer also applies in his nasty screeds to smear others.

157 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:39:42pm

But, but, family planning is teh bad! We must be fruitful and multiply!
(as if we haven't done that enough already)

/

Ok, maybe equating having less children with reduced carbon emissions is a straightforward exercise in logic. Still I can't help but admit that it just sounds a little creepy to me, it just isn't something I expect to see being used in public debate.

That in no way excuses the rant that Rush went off on, or his horrible attempt at comparing it to terrorism and calling for the man to commit suicide. "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong." (Sesame Street ©)

158 ~Fianna  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:40:08pm

I just can't fathom why voluntary population control is so controversial for some people.

No one worth anything on the left, the right or the center is suggesting a China-style policy. That's intrusive, it's creepy and, frankly, from my leftist perspective, a dangerous tool in these times - eugenicists have always proposed involuntary birth control to weed out those "undesirables" (those groups have historically included blacks, Catholics, Jews, and poor people in general. There are enough people running around today that think that those groups are still "undesirable" and have added a few more groups to the list.) Giving them a pro-environment tool to do that is just gross.

However, voluntary birth control leads to increased family standards of living; increased education levels for women; better maternal health; better child health; fewer unwanted and unloved children...

How are any of those bad things???

Oh, yeah, birth control implies women having sex because it might possibly feel good.

159 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:40:31pm

re: #149 ralphieboy

Rush likes to portray "environmental whackos" as people who would have us all go back to living in lean-tos and wiping our butts with dried leaves.

But true environmentalism is not about regression, it is about technological progress: building more energy-efficient technolgies and getting away from the rather archaic means of generating energy by burning trees (or their fossilized remnants)

And it can lead to a higher standard of living for all.

No true Environmentalist... Heh.

(I do agree that innovation and conservation are not mutually exclusive and trying to turn back the clock on population or technology is futile.)

160 zelnaga  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:40:43pm

re: #6 DaddyG

He's crude for sure... but several Lizards here including myself are want to use the old joke that "the population control advocates should be the first to volunteer."

I suspect the NYT Reporter is practicing what he's preaching and that he is, in fact, using contraceptives. Saying he ought to kill himself seems inappropriate given that he's not proposing anyone be killed.

161 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:40:54pm

re: #121 Pawn of the Oppressor

Yes. Beck was better on CNN!

162 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:41:00pm

re: #147 CyanSnowHawk

wow i breezed right by that! good catch!
yeah,whats with this white people crap?

163 Locker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:41:04pm

re: #155 Charles

I don't get why this should be controversial at all. It seems like completely straightforward common sense to me. Why should anyone get upset if other people choose to use contraception, for whatever reason? And why should anyone get upset if voluntary incentives to use contraception are offered to people?

I'm going to go ahead and say "religious beliefs" Especially the beliefs of evangelicals who are thoroughly convinced of their god mandated duty to convert all others to their way of thinking and to enforce their view of morality on the world.

Personally I think they can fuck off but hey, that's my guess as to who will be upset and why.

164 right_wing2  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:41:11pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

I am rapidly coming to Hansen's view, that in the future, when the effects of this are obvious even to the most ignorant, men like Rush and Beck, should be tried for criminally leading people to their dooms for the sake of profit.

'Criminally leading people do their doom?' What about idiots like Paul Erhlich and his 'Population Bomb'? What about people who, because of religious beliefs, won't see a doctor? What about groups who oppose genetically modified foods?

165 ~Fianna  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:41:24pm

re: #138 Rightwingconspirator

I'll call you out on this. Show your numbers to prove who emits how much co2.

Don't have numbers handy, but as much as I hate to back this statement, I think he's correct, especially in regard to cows and methane.

166 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:41:30pm

re: #130 Walter L. Newton

Fair enough... my personal feelings about the gravity of his false speech are not the point I came here to make. I will drop this issue.

The point that is relevant is that the science is the exact opposite of what he is claiming.

167 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:41:42pm

re: #158 ~Fianna

168 Kragar  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:41:42pm

re: #155 Charles

I don't get why this should be controversial at all. It seems like completely straightforward common sense to me. Why should anyone get upset if other people choose to use contraception, for whatever reason? And why should anyone get upset if voluntary incentives to use contraception are offered to people?

Because God hates contraception. Got to be fruitful and multiply.

169 dugmartsch  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:41:58pm

re: #120 vxbush

While Rivkin's paper may be a thought experiment, I don't like the idea that children are simply the measure of carbon they expel. The idea of "carbon credits" for kids is pretty disturbing to me, actually.

Totally disturbing, and just wrong. It's the way an extinctionist views the world. Just counting off time until the whole planet will go belly up from lack of resources and lack of new ideas. History has shown time and time again that transcendent individuals compensate for thousands or millions of lives. All of which have to be lived to produce that one transcendental human being.

The more people the faster it happens.

This is a topic that always sets me off. When someone I know talks about "overpopulation" as if there ever could be such a thing. Humanity is the most amazing thing we know of that Universe has produced, why would you want less of it?

170 idioma  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:42:05pm

Rush Limbaugh is still alive? I forgot about him in 1996.

171 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:42:35pm

re: #168 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because God hates contraception. Got to be fruitful and multiply.

Hence the need to control women.

172 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:42:36pm

re: #166 LudwigVanQuixote

Fair enough... my personal feelings about the gravity of his false speech are not the point I came here to make. I will drop this issue.

The point that is relevant is that the science is the exact opposite of what he is claiming.

I can agree with that.

173 jayzee  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:42:37pm

re: #34 bratwurst

Right here-but I'm not an apologist. It is satire. Is it in bad taste? Yes-though the suicide bomber part is the most offensive comment made. I have an issue with taking horrific, evil acts and comparing them to those that are not.

The suicide part was clearly satire. Rush does not want this man to commit suicide nor anyone else from what I can see from his comments. He does however, clearly take issue with the hypocrisy of those the say we need to cut down on carbon emissions while flying around the world in private jets and playing huge concerts.

Also, Andrew Revkin's assessment is an accurate one. Population control, I fear, voluntary or not, will become a component of carbon limits at some time. Quite frankly, I find this very scary. Even if I did believe in AGW, of which I am admittedly skeptical, I would find this frightening. Just my opinion.

174 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:43:01pm

re: #164 right_wing2

'Criminally leading people do their doom?' What about idiots like Paul Erhlich and his 'Population Bomb'? What about people who, because of religious beliefs, won't see a doctor? What about groups who oppose genetically modified foods?

Secondary in scope to denying AGW or its consequences.

Understand that if Rush and Beck and their corporate and political masters win, and nothing gets done, civilization as we know it ends and hundreds of millions to billions die in the catastrophes that follow.

175 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:43:32pm

re: #168 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because God hates contraception. Got to be fruitful and multiply.

That was one of God's first assignments. We've successfully completed it. Hooray! We're done, we can stop now!

176 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:44:00pm

re: #149 ralphieboy

Rush likes to portray "environmental whackos" as people who would have us all go back to living in lean-tos and wiping our butts with dried leaves.

But true environmentalism is not about regression, it is about technological progress: building more energy-efficient technolgies and getting away from the rather archaic means of generating energy by burning trees (or their fossilized remnants)

And it can lead to a higher standard of living for all.

I agree. It should be about technological progress, not regression. However, I find far too many people (left and right) are more interested in regression than progress even as they enjoy the fruits of technological progress. I guess they'd rather have their iPhone and X-Box and eat it too.

177 KenJen  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:44:20pm

Why hasn't anyone come up with a birth control pill for men?

178 ~Fianna  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:44:21pm

re: #167 freetoken

Wow, did I render you speechless? *grin*

179 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:44:33pm

re: #163 Locker

hmmm religious beliefs...pretty sad if the will of god can be stymied by a latex bag or a pill...just sayin'

180 Locker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:44:49pm

re: #177 KenJen

Why hasn't anyone come up with a birth control pill for men?

Maybe you could take this on as a part time hobby. Tinker around in your basement... come up with something...

181 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:44:53pm

re: #121 Pawn of the Oppressor

He actually had a late-night TV show in the early Clinton years which I found pretty entertaining, as a young adolescent. There was even a newsletter with real political information. Back then he seemed fairly sensible, albeit over-the-top on occasion; kinda like how Glenn Beck seemed sane before he had his own Fox show.

I remember that. He had a dress code for the audience. Elegant Evening wear IIRC.

182 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:45:20pm

re: #159 DaddyG

No true Environmentalist... Heh.

(I do agree that innovation and conservation are not mutually exclusive and trying to turn back the clock on population or technology is futile.)

The problem is that Rush is locked into a rather conservative idea of "progress" that means more and bigger cars, more power plants, more consumption of fossil fuels, no matter what sort of political and military problems we engender in securing our sources thereof.

Once we get away from that mindset, we will be able to reclaim our position as a leading technological and economic force in the world.

183 idioma  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:45:36pm

re: #180 Locker

Maybe you could take this on as a part time hobby. Tinker around in your basement... come up with something...

[Link: www.askmen.com...]

184 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:45:51pm

re: #155 Charles

I don't get why this should be controversial at all. It seems like completely straightforward common sense to me. Why should anyone get upset if other people choose to use contraception, for whatever reason? And why should anyone get upset if voluntary incentives to use contraception are offered to people?

Voluntary contraception and education are the right answers, but as I said upthread this does get into sticky politics when it sounds like the west is imposing on the developing world where families still use offspring as an insurance against mortality rates or hold strong traditions and beliefs about fertility. The population issues are mitigated in the west by our affluence but it could be easily said "who are we to lecture other nations given our consumption per household, etc..." Yet taking population controls only to modern nations is prescibing the medicine where it is least needed in terms of real population growth.

185 ~Fianna  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:45:53pm

re: #169 dugmartsch

Wow. Just wow.

186 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:46:04pm

Now as to population control, the best, most effective and most moral way to stem population growth is to educate women and provide birth control. A woman with real career and educational options is much less likely to want a huge family and moreover, with birth control and a real standard of sexual education, has enough control over her own body to prevent it.

The reason that nations like many in Europe are having population decline is precisely because of this.

187 Locker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:46:17pm

re: #179 Boondock St. Bender

hmmm religious beliefs...pretty sad if the will of god can be stymied by a latex bag or a pill...just sayin'

Laugh. I guess his will is also stymied by those darn homosexuals always wanting to get married. Who knew he was a glass cannon (MMO term, sorry).

188 Merryweather  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:46:24pm

Given that at some point in the future (if not right now) this planet will have a major overpopulation problem, people having fewer kids would indeed be a good thing, not just for environmental reasons.

189 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:46:30pm

re: #166 LudwigVanQuixote

Fair enough... my personal feelings about the gravity of his false speech are not the point I came here to make. I will drop this issue.

The point that is relevant is that the science is the exact opposite of what he is claiming.

That's fair. You fight him on rhetoric, not by locking him up. Remember, there are a fair number of nuts of the far right who would lock us all up for our own "thought crimes". I'd rather we not be like them.

190 KenJen  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:46:37pm

re: #180 Locker

Maybe you could take this on as a part time hobby. Tinker around in your basement... come up with something...

Wanna be my guinea pig? "It rubs the lotion on it's skin"

191 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:46:47pm

re: #171 Sharmuta

Hence the need to control women.

Because you know, men had nothing to do with getting them pregnant...

192 Locker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:47:28pm

re: #190 KenJen

Wanna be my guinea pig? "It rubs the lotion on it's skin"

I won't play "lambs" without the latest copy of Auto Trader, you know that right?

193 Michael Perz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:47:28pm

I've never once listened to Limbaugh and have no intention of ever doing so in the future, so I'm hoping that someone who has might be able to answer this for me. Has he ever suggested that minorities receiving government assistance should have less children? If so, was it out of a concern for the environment?

194 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:47:40pm

re: #177 KenJen

Why hasn't anyone come up with a birth control pill for men?

It's a more difficult task. Sperm gets cranked out on a more or less continuous basis, unmodulated by hormones or other easily controlled factors. There's just no easy way to shut off the tap, at least not that's been found.

On the plus side, vasectomies are a lot less complicated and risky than tubal ligations or other similar procedures.

195 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:47:56pm

re: #119 CyanSnowHawk

Slow down Charles, I was pointing out how Rush exemplified the irrational reaction, not defending it.

I am surprised that Revkin thought, even when couched in the language of "this is just a thought experiment and not an actual proposal," that this idea was a good one throw into the fray. Rush won't be the only one to react hysterically.

But it is a good idea to throw into the fray. See this chart. All of the change is Voluntary (excepting China,) and because birth control is available, because education is more available, and because they are converting to urban High Energy environments.
These are excellent trends, I hope they continue. It's notable that the few countries who are the outliers are countries where Fundamentalist Religions hold terrific sway - Sub Saharan Africa, and the more backwards Islamic nations.

196 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:48:14pm

re: #184 DaddyG

Voluntary contraception and education are the right answers, but as I said upthread this does get into sticky politics when it sounds like the west is imposing on the developing world where families still use offspring as an insurance against mortality rates or hold strong traditions and beliefs about fertility. The population issues are mitigated in the west by our affluence but it could be easily said "who are we to lecture other nations given our consumption per household, etc..." Yet taking population controls only to modern nations is prescibing the medicine where it is least needed in terms of real population growth.

You're missing the point. People in developed nations are the main producers of CO2, by a huge margin.

197 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:48:51pm

re: #177 KenJen

Why hasn't anyone come up with a birth control pill for men?

Midol

198 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:49:04pm

Just read St. Paul: It is a basic tenent of Christian morality that sex should be avoided except for procreation, and that putting a layer of latex between egg and sperm (or interrupting their comingling with chemicals or hormones) is against the Will of God.

Abstinence. Only. Or. Face. The. Consequences.

///

199 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:49:08pm

re: #193 Michael Perz

I've never once listened to Limbaugh and have no intention of ever doing so in the future, so I'm hoping that someone who has might be able to answer this for me. Has he ever suggested that minorities receiving government assistance should have less children? If so, was it out of a concern for the environment?

He has suggested that many times.

200 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:49:40pm

re: #148 vxbush

My mistake, then. But it's still weighing a child against the amount of CO2 s/he uses/consumes/creates, as if that is the only thing that matters. That minimizes life.

So if you have 10 people on a boat, going for a certain voyage, you need to take on a certain amount of supplies yes? Based on how much they consume yes?

Does it minimize life's value to plan accordingly?

201 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:49:51pm

re: #193 Michael Perz

I've never once listened to Limbaugh and have no intention of ever doing so in the future, so I'm hoping that someone who has might be able to answer this for me. Has he ever suggested that minorities receiving government assistance should have less children? If so, was it out of a concern for the environment?

Why don't you google this? Anyone here think this is an unusual question, out of thin air?

202 vxbush  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:50:01pm

re: #169 dugmartsch

Totally disturbing, and just wrong. It's the way an extinctionist views the world. Just counting off time until the whole planet will go belly up from lack of resources and lack of new ideas. History has shown time and time again that transcendent individuals compensate for thousands or millions of lives. All of which have to be lived to produce that one transcendental human being.

The more people the faster it happens.

This is a topic that always sets me off. When someone I know talks about "overpopulation" as if there ever could be such a thing. Humanity is the most amazing thing we know of that Universe has produced, why would you want less of it?

This is not my point, and I find your tone to be annoying, to be quite honest. Others can make better arguments for population than me. But just on a philosophical level, such thought experiments reduce children to numbers. Do you just want to be considered for your ability to harm the planet? Is that a positive thing?

So it's voluntary. That's nice, in theory. But Do-gooders™ may come along who say it should be mandatory. You know, like cap and trade. We're nowhere near that point, I realize. But I find the concept disturbing.

203 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:50:20pm

re: #199 Shiplord Kirel

He has suggested that many times.


But not out of concern for the environment, unless you count "ethnic hygiene" as a form of environmentalism...

204 ~Fianna  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:50:25pm

re: #184 DaddyG

Voluntary contraception and education are the right answers, but as I said upthread this does get into sticky politics when it sounds like the west is imposing on the developing world where families still use offspring as an insurance against mortality rates or hold strong traditions and beliefs about fertility. The population issues are mitigated in the west by our affluence but it could be easily said "who are we to lecture other nations given our consumption per household, etc..." Yet taking population controls only to modern nations is prescibing the medicine where it is least needed in terms of real population growth.

Women tend to catch on to the benefits of contraception pretty quick. Birth is pretty grueling and repeating it every year, especially only to watch 3/4 of those babies die before age 5 isn't something that women want to continue to repeat.

When birth control comes with modern medicine and technology like water purification that prevents infant mortality, women usually jump right in.

In some places, men have a harder time getting over it. That often goes hand in hand with traditional practices where fertility is strongly linked to masculinity and where women and children are property.

205 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:50:52pm

re: #193 Michael Perz

I've never once listened to Limbaugh and have no intention of ever doing so in the future, so I'm hoping that someone who has might be able to answer this for me. Has he ever suggested that minorities receiving government assistance should have less children? If so, was it out of a concern for the environment?

Addendum: Outrage over the reckless fertility of welfare moms is a favorite theme of the radio-right.

206 researchok  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:51:28pm

Thanos, have you seen this? I posted this earlier but you may have missed it.

See this too, from Nationmaster.

207 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:51:38pm

re: #156 LudwigVanQuixote

The test for a false prophet is if he predicts a blessing from Hashem (at a certain time) and it does not come to pass. A punishment can always be withheld by tsuva (repentance) but a blessing is never withheld once promised.

The penalty is stoning.

As to Amalek, that is something else entirely. While it was once an actual tribe, in modern usage (since the middle ages commentaries) Amalek is more of a spiritual and mental state of unredeemable evil. Amalek is the very embodiment of evil and the heart of gleeful malice and unrighteousness. Nazis, Jihadis and Klansmen pretty well fall under the label of Amalek in the modern sense of the word.

No, the Jewish law that most pertains to Rush is the notion of not putting a stumbling block before the blind. The law is very much about not conning people to their detriment. Bearing false witness applies as well. Being a talebearer also applies in his nasty screeds to smear others.

I would certainly not classify Rush as Amalek. That label is reserved for folks like Dinnerjacket.

208 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:52:06pm

re: #199 Shiplord Kirel

He has suggested that many times.

Linky?

209 Merryweather  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:52:20pm

re: #169 dugmartsch

Humanity is the most amazing thing we know of that Universe has produced, why would you want less of it?

There's so much hubris in that one sentence, I'm almost expecting lightning bolts to start raining down from on high. Substitute life for humanity and I'd agree.

210 gregb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:52:23pm

Limbaugh and Clancy are friends. Clancy's written multiple books on massive-scale eco-terrorism due to the boogie man du jour. It was a very popular meme in the late 90's to mid 2000's where everyone thought militant environmentalists were escalating.

211 GCM29  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:52:46pm

This is just the nature of what conservative talk radio has become...comments like this appear beyond the pale to most people, but to the people who are buying Glenn Beck's book and listening to a 12 hour block of talk radio, this is probably no big deal. I can imagine a lot of fist pumping and cheering actually from that camp.

212 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:52:52pm

re: #186 LudwigVanQuixote

Now as to population control, the best, most effective and most moral way to stem population growth is to educate women and provide birth control. A woman with real career and educational options is much less likely to want a huge family and moreover, with birth control and a real standard of sexual education, has enough control over her own body to prevent it.

The reason that nations like many in Europe are having population decline is precisely because of this.

There is also disease and natural disasters that play a role. As science and math education slip, America risks losing it's edge in medicine and technologies to stay ahead of these problems. We're evolution's greatest achievement to date on this planet, and it's because our intelligence has allowed us to get there. However, if we neglect that aspect of our species' nature, we will be evolution's greatest loser. We're mostly hurting ourselves.

213 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:53:27pm

re: #186 LudwigVanQuixote

Now as to population control, the best, most effective and most moral way to stem population growth is to educate women and provide birth control. A woman with real career and educational options is much less likely to want a huge family and moreover, with birth control and a real standard of sexual education, has enough control over her own body to prevent it.

The reason that nations like many in Europe are having population decline is precisely because of this.

Many micro-loan projects in developing nations are providing women with ways to be secure independently. This allows them to have children and husbands for the right reasons not as a buffer from poverty. To get any positive change in behavior you have to incent not preach or punish.

214 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:54:26pm

re: #156 LudwigVanQuixote

Well said LudwigVan. Rush is not a prophet.

215 davesax  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:54:35pm

Michael Crichton was actually a big anti-environmentalist and global warming denier.

I bring it up because I always admired his intelligence, but his willingness to get into bed with these guys showed that intelligence has nothing to do with it.

216 b_Snark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:55:34pm

re: #26 Ojoe

Yes. Within his condom remark is hidden the assumption that people are bad. I think that thought is extreme, and leads to bad places.

No, his point is that having too many people is bad, it makes it more difficult to manage the environment. There is no such thing as unlimited resources, adding humans that demand more resources when those resources are already fully utilized means the standard of living drops for all humans. This is also true when applied to environmental damage that can affect, directly or indirectly, the human population.

Overloading the system with humans is bad for humans. If AGW decreases arable land, fish stocks, and fresh water, unless our technology can save us once again, many will suffer. If all it takes to reduce the strain on the environment and resulting high potential suffering, is to bribe some to voluntarily limit the number of children, then it is not such a bad idea.

Again, the point isn't that people are bad but that too many people are bad, it's a numbers game. Sometimes too much of a good thing isn't so good.

217 arethusa  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:55:37pm

re: #186 LudwigVanQuixote

I agree with you, but I would just note that we shouldn't assume that education and interest in a career will necessarily lead women to the decision to limit their family size. Some women will decide they want a large family, for whatever reason, and in a free society that should be all right.

218 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:56:14pm

Nature designed humans to start reproducing in their early teens, which was necessary to ensure enough offspring to maintain the race.

now with technologicap progress, there is an interest in delaying that date, which leads to the whole social and moral conundrum of preventing teen pregnancy.

219 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:56:14pm

re: #206 researchok

Thanos, have you seen this? I posted this earlier but you may have missed it.

See this too, from Nationmaster.

Yes, it's something people don't realize. I grew up with people all sweating that India, Bangladesh, and China were going to swamp the world with overpopulation and scarcity of everything. Those trends are thankfully reversing, but it takes energy, birth control, education, and upwarward mobility to keep it fueled. That's why things like cap and trade worry me so much: we need to keep the world yearning towards high energy society, not the low energy eco luddism of most Greenpeacers. That way lies doom.

220 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:56:37pm

I see that my statement about this earlier drew a lot of fire.

So I will withdraw the offending moralization on my part and stick to the science.

This is what needs to be understood. If there are any questions about any of the claims I make in this, I will gladly post a plethora of scientific links. It is important that the real issue gets clearly understood.

The effects of a growing population are directly in collision with the effects of AGW.

AGW will limit the amount of available food and fresh water and housing on this planet. The planet really is finite and a growing populace will eventually bump into a resource limit if we destroy our resources. This is a fact that can not be escaped.

Now how soon will it happen?

Best estimates and predictions so far have a 2-3 meter raise in sea level 100-150 years from now if things do not change in the next several decades.

That alone takes out much of the coastline of the world. This also happens to be where most of the worlds major cities are located.

In the meantime, food production will plummet.

The oceans are already drastically overfished and will become carbon saturated leading to anoxia. In other words, mas extinctions in the oceans because the fish can't breathe means no fish to eat.

The breadbaskets of the world, think American mid west, will not be able to produce nearly as much food because of less rain.

The places in the world that depend on melt water for fresh water will no longer have them. Again we are seeing the effect now. The people currently most hard hit are Indians in South American highlands, so most white folks don't know or care, however, it will happen in places like Arizona too by mid century.

So, if there is far less food, far less fresh water, and well many displaced people from flooded cites, yet there are more people, what does that mean?

Leave it to Rush to make an angry quip as a way to completely not talk about the real problem.

221 Guanxi88  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:56:52pm

re: #69 Alouette

Who are you calling ignorant and stupid? I have 9 kids and 23 grandkids.

My plan is to reproduce Zionist minions and take over.

Perfect - willing tools for my #2 daughter, the future cult-leader/general.

222 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:57:36pm

re: #204 ~Fianna

Women tend to catch on to the benefits of contraception pretty quick. Birth is pretty grueling and repeating it every year, especially only to watch 3/4 of those babies die before age 5 isn't something that women want to continue to repeat.

When birth control comes with modern medicine and technology like water purification that prevents infant mortality, women usually jump right in.

In some places, men have a harder time getting over it. That often goes hand in hand with traditional practices where fertility is strongly linked to masculinity and where women and children are property.

All true.

223 vxbush  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:57:42pm

re: #200 LudwigVanQuixote

So if you have 10 people on a boat, going for a certain voyage, you need to take on a certain amount of supplies yes? Based on how much they consume yes?

Does it minimize life's value to plan accordingly?

To me, that does not sound analogous to Rivkin's thesis. And if people want to plan for only a certain number of children, be my guest.

I'm not sure I can explain why this rubs me so wrong. It feels wrong. Maybe my problem with this is that it feels like people who choose not to procreate are getting an extra bonus. Maybe because children are only being seen as baggage, or "earth foulers", or worse. The presumption here is that any additional human on the face of the planet is necessarily a bad thing.

Do we have population problems? Sure, in some places. But voluntary suggestions like this one just smell too much like China's enforced policy to me.

224 Dreader1962  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:58:03pm

re: #202 vxbush


So it's voluntary. That's nice, in theory. But Do-gooders™ may come along who say it should be mandatory. You know, like cap and trade. We're nowhere near that point, I realize. But I find the concept disturbing.

Exactly. Those who propose 'voluntary' measures such as this are looking to produce a certain result. I'm assuming there will be a government committee to review the effectiveness of the incentives - after all, it's in the budget. What is the next measure after 10 years of the voluntary measures when the committee determines the incentives did not produce effective reductions in our population? Also, since we can only control people within our borders, will this have a concurrent limit on immigration? Especially because Americans produce more CO2; it is effective to keep potential immigrants in countries that produce less CO2.

These discussions should not be immune from criticism, but I don't think that one can categorize Limbaugh's show as intellectual criticism. If anything, he does more harm to actual skeptics than anyone else.

There also seems to be a presumption that anything that is done in Copenhagen will be magically 'effective' (this is what amused me about Brown's '50 day' warning).

225 gregb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:58:06pm

re: #221 Guanxi88

Perfect - willing tools for my #2 daughter, the future cult-leader/general.

You played a lot of Risk or Supremacy when you were a kid, no?

226 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:58:14pm

re: #214 Stuart Leviton

no he's more into profit..

227 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:58:14pm

re: #196 Charles

You're missing the point. People in developed nations are the main producers of CO2, by a huge margin.


I wasn't limiting my consideration of the population problem to CO2 emissions. That is a factor but so is food production, water, land and disease. The price spike of food grains due to bio-fuel production is a good example of how all these things are interconnected.

Even limiting the conversation to carbon emissions India and China are going to catch up to us real soon as they continue to add cars and industry to their populations.

When talking population the west really doesn't have a firm moral high ground to dictate to anyone else. I'm not advocating we don't do anything but we need to do it from a position of offering viable alternatives like education, medical support, economic opportunities to make families secure with fewer children, etc.

228 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:58:20pm

re: #155 Charles

I don't get why this should be controversial at all. It seems like completely straightforward common sense to me. Why should anyone get upset if other people choose to use contraception, for whatever reason? And why should anyone get upset if voluntary incentives to use contraception are offered to people?

And yet, they do. That is inescapable. It is also not a big leap from voluntary, for the common good, to mandatory, for the common good, if one is already suspicious of the group advocating the voluntary measures. Contraception efforts have been fought all over the third world as oppression from the developed nations, even though a rational case was seemingly obvious that reducing out of control population growth could help third world nations develop more quickly. That is my logic as to why even a hint at population control will bring out hysterical critics.

229 ubernerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:58:21pm

Yep...derned ol' Rush Limbaugh...

Glad there's no one in the enviromental movement who would ever suggest that suicide is a good form of climate control...

...'cause the only thing really close to it is the Voluntary Human Extension Movement...who, fortunately for us, "do not believe in retro-active contraception," but only because they couldn't be an example if they killed themselves.

230 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:58:29pm

Megadildos, Rush!

231 b_Snark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:58:36pm

re: #33 LudwigVanQuixote

I've only been here for a short time, but I already value your posts.

232 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:59:35pm

re: #230 negativ

Megadildos, Rush!

Nominated for rotating header...

233 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:00:06pm

re: #229 ubernerd

Yep...derned ol' Rush Limbaugh...

Glad there's no one in the enviromental movement who would ever suggest that suicide is a good form of climate control...

...'cause the only thing really close to it is the Voluntary Human Extension Movement...who, fortunately for us, "do not believe in retro-active contraception," but only because they couldn't be an example if they killed themselves.

So, you agree with Rush?

234 researchok  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:00:42pm

re: #219 Thanos

That's why things like cap and trade worry me so much: we need to keep the world yearning towards high energy society, not the low energy eco luddism of most Greenpeacers. That way lies doom.

3 point swish.

In the end, (sensible) capitalism will offer the most solutions.

235 ointmentfly  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:01:51pm

I think this is close to the pinnacle of irrationality when it comes to climate change. To think of not putting a rational thinking and well raised kid on the planet because of his or her carbon footprint is really more OT than what Rush said.

236 Guanxi88  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:02:03pm

re: #225 gregb

You played a lot of Risk or Supremacy when you were a kid, no?

I did, perhaps there was some influence there? But no, the girl's got charisma - she's got her mother's looks & her daddy's brains, and is absolutely shameless about bending people to her will.

And she's only 4; spooky stuff. I know how Napoleon's dad must have felt.

237 Dreader1962  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:02:10pm

re: #220 LudwigVanQuixote

LVQ - you are literally doing a cut and paste within the same thread. I don't know if you are aware that you just repeated #7w (your post) in its entirety, verbatim.

238 gregb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:02:19pm

I think the inference here is:

IF you (Revkin) really believe that where
"that" = reducto ad absurdum of Revkin's premise

THEN (The only logical conclusion) is that he should stop being part of the problem.

It's just a common rhetorical cheap trick.

239 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:02:40pm

re: #229 ubernerd

Limbaugh explicitly called out Revkin, not some hypothetical boogie...

Revkin is no radical or extremist. He simply stated in his widely read column what is obvious. He raised the question of voluntary birth control specifically to get more visibility on the issue, IMO, as it is hardly something new or innovative.

240 Dreader1962  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:02:43pm

re: #237 Dreader1962
Sorry, #72
PIMF

241 KenJen  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:03:31pm

re: #214 Stuart Leviton

Well said LudwigVan. Rush is not a prophet.

He is a lovable, furry, little fuzz ball./

242 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:03:36pm

re: #223 vxbush

To me, that does not sound analogous to Rivkin's thesis. And if people want to plan for only a certain number of children, be my guest.

I'm not sure I can explain why this rubs me so wrong. It feels wrong. Maybe my problem with this is that it feels like people who choose not to procreate are getting an extra bonus. Maybe because children are only being seen as baggage, or "earth foulers", or worse. The presumption here is that any additional human on the face of the planet is necessarily a bad thing.

Do we have population problems? Sure, in some places. But voluntary suggestions like this one just smell too much like China's enforced policy to me.

You are a mathematician. You know about Volterra's predator prey curves.

The fact is that we live on a finite planet and eventually you are faced with some grim choices. There is simply no way to have our cake and eat it too.

I wish that were not the case. I too feel a sense of distaste by being forced to discuss this. However, the science does not leave us the option of pretending otherwise. In the absence of happy choices, I think a world where we have provided education and birth control to women sufficiently in general that the population stabilizes as they pursue their own careers is mess gruesome than war, famine plague and death.

Give the realities of Volterra, there really aren't other options.

Now to be fair, getting real with AGW pushes the problem off a bit.

If we do not get real with AGW though, this problem will hit us directly in the face by the end of the century if not sooner. That is just the way it is.

Of course, we could luck out, as creatures migrate due to shifting weather patterns and world wide immune systems weaken due to less nutrition and less clean water, a mass epidemic could solve the problem as well.

243 MandyManners  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:04:31pm

He mocked babies struck down by H1N1 and now he mocks suicide. Rush is a vile, fat fuck.

244 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:05:16pm

re: #243 MandyManners

He mocked babies struck down by H1N1 and now he mocks suicide. Rush is a vile, fat fuck.

For certain. He is like the Howard Stern of racist, callous, heartless assholes

245 gregb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:05:19pm

re: #236 Guanxi88

I did, perhaps there was some influence there? But no, the girl's got charisma - she's got her mother's looks & her daddy's brains, and is absolutely shameless about bending people to her will.

And she's only 4; spooky stuff. I know how Napoleon's dad must have felt.

Nice. It's a fun age. Just make sure you don't spoil her into Veruca Salt.

246 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:05:34pm

re: #231 b_sharp

I've only been here for a short time, but I already value your posts.

Thank you.

247 Neutral President  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:05:41pm

re: #182 ralphieboy

The problem is that Rush is locked into a rather conservative idea of "progress" that means more and bigger cars, more power plants, more consumption of fossil fuels, no matter what sort of political and military problems we engender in securing our sources thereof.

Once we get away from that mindset, we will be able to reclaim our position as a leading technological and economic force in the world.

Neither of those are incompatible with environmentalism if done the right way. Big electric cars and a grid powered by more gen 3/4 nuclear power plants and solar is an example of just that. There are those who are simply using environmentalism as a vehicle for class envy/warfare, nanny statism, and socialism. I believe this to part of the reason those in positions of power are knee-jerk against nuclear power, and advocate alternatives publicly, while fighting them in the back room.

I can guarantee a lot of AGW skeptics and "deniers" are that way simply because they cant get past the obvious point that many of their loudest opponents are simply shills for some variation of statism & 'do as I say not as I do'. If they think, because all they can see so far is, AGW as just the next in a long line of excuses/crises used by leftists in which giving up freedom and prosperity for "your own good" is the goal, then they are not going to bother looking at the science and will reject the whole concept out of hand.

There are many ex-skeptics on LGF in regards to AGW. It took a lot of work to ignore the hooting and howling of the left and just look at the facts before we came around. The average person has neither the time or the inclination to take the effort we did to arrive at our positions.

Howling about people driving too much, in cars you don't like or turning their ACs on when its 100 degrees out isn't helping the cause.

248 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:07:09pm

re: #237 Dreader1962

LVQ - you are literally doing a cut and paste within the same thread. I don't know if you are aware that you just repeated #7w (your post) in its entirety, verbatim.

Actually I took out the part that people were offended by where I mused about potential legal repercussions.

249 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:08:38pm

re: #237 Dreader1962

LVQ - you are literally doing a cut and paste within the same thread. I don't know if you are aware that you just repeated #7w (your post) in its entirety, verbatim.

He took out the mind-crime bit about trying AGW critics, but left the racist bit in.

250 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:08:41pm

re: #217 arethusa

I agree with you, but I would just note that we shouldn't assume that education and interest in a career will necessarily lead women to the decision to limit their family size. Some women will decide they want a large family, for whatever reason, and in a free society that should be all right.

You are correct, however college educated women start having babies later in general. This cuts down on reproductive rates overall.

251 ubernerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:09:26pm

re: #233 Walter L. Newton

Nope. Didn't say that.

Just trying to take a different look at the situation and trying to make the point that Rush makes his money by blowing things out of proportion. By devoting so much effort to going off on Rush makes him stronger. The NFL flap has done wonders for his ratings and has only given him more ammo for his tirades.

The same is happening with Fox News and the White House.

Whether the criticisms are warranted or not in either case, the conflict is going to make Rush and Fox stronger.

By pointing out the fact that there are enviromental groups who actually do mostly adhere to exactly what Rush is saying does not condone approval nor of disapproval.

The point is that I think people are venting our spleens on Rush in this thread when they could be saving the ammo for something more worthy.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I've been wrong before.

252 Dreader1962  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:09:57pm

re: #248 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually I took out the part that people were offended by where I mused about potential legal repercussions.

Okay, I see that; yet another reason to wish for the ability to edit one's posts here. In addition to the mistaken quote of a flouncer.

Objection withdrawn.

I for one would like to see more policy proposals on what Copenhagen could result in rather than speculations about population controls. I'm especially interested in the standards to be used for measurement of compliance, since many of the nations are either militarily or economically competitive.

253 b_Snark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:10:01pm

re: #78 Land Shark


And the forests, those damn forests put out a lot of CO2 too. And what about those volcanoes that put out more "greenhouse" gases in a single eruption than humans have since the dawn of industrialization?

You might want to go freshen up your knowledge base a tad.

254 jayzee  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:10:04pm

re: #222 LudwigVanQuixote

All true.

I've got say, I think you guys are off. First of all, there may be significant health benefits to a woman that has children especially if they breast feed. Also, the notion that, When birth control comes with modern medicine and technology like water purification that prevents infant mortality...

left me scratching my head, We can't have water purification without birth control?

255 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:10:10pm

re: #249 CyanSnowHawk

He took out the mind-crime bit about trying AGW critics, but left the racist bit in.

Yeah... Are you aware of the effects going on right now in Bangladesh or in Latin America?

Do you think that hits the news here?

Sorry to say it, but in reality, unless you are talking about suffering white folks, it just doesn't make the same press in America.

256 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:12:00pm

re: #242 LudwigVanQuixote
I agree that populations need to be stabalized but the best way to do it is to give attractive alternatives. Telling a poor mother in India she should have her husband use a condom is foolishly naieve. However, giving her a cell phone and a $20 loan to run her own telecommunications company in a remote village (see Grameen Bank), educating her on birth control and hygene, and providing agricultural support so she doesn't have to worry about starving; gives her the power to choose the size and affluence of her family. This is much more likely to lead to stable populations in the long run given the tendency of better fed and more affluent populations to drop their birth rates.

Parking all of the SUVs in the Western world will probably have a smaller impact in the long run than that.

257 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:12:34pm

re: #228 CyanSnowHawk

And yet, they do. That is inescapable. It is also not a big leap from voluntary, for the common good, to mandatory, for the common good, if one is already suspicious of the group advocating the voluntary measures. Contraception efforts have been fought all over the third world as oppression from the developed nations, even though a rational case was seemingly obvious that reducing out of control population growth could help third world nations develop more quickly. That is my logic as to why even a hint at population control will bring out hysterical critics.

This is an interesting argument. It reminds me of how actions against smoking began and changed over time once it's health effects became a source of concern.

First, the measures were essentially voluntary - warning labels, public service announcements. Sales to minors had been restricted - very loosely - for a long time, but then these were more strictly enforced. Advertisements in one medium followed by another and another were outlawed. Taxes on cigarettes were raised. And things became much more intrusive: limits were placed on where people could smoke, and the number of places expanded dramatically. And all the while, outright ostracism of smokers was steadily increasing. As fewer and fewer people smoked, those smokers who remained were faced with an increasing number of restrictions and outright hostility. Even today this continues, with proposals in some cities calling for bans on smoking even in one's own backyard, or within one's own home - although this latter is so extremely intrusive and enforcement so draconian it's unlikely we'll see such a thing - at least not soon.

But the point is that any such regulation, undertaken for the public good, can easily become a slippery slope that leads downward into actions against individuals in their most private moments through a series of small steps, each not terribly noticeable but whose sum total is intrusive in the extreme.

Great care needs to be exercised when implementing such policies. Left unwatched, they can expand into very unpleasant places.

258 wrenchwench  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:13:13pm

re: #251 ubernerd

So, which is it? Bad to vent on Rush because it makes him stronger, or bad because there are more worthy targets?

Of course, that's just my opinion. I've been wrong before.

By taking two sides in one post, you pretty much guarantee being wrong again.

259 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:14:03pm

re: #169 dugmartsch

[...] Humanity is the most amazing thing we know of that Universe has produced, why would you want less of it?

Some think of people as minds and souls, others think of them as merely mouths and stomachs. I'd like to see more people who are concerned about the future to have more faith in human ingenuity.

260 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:14:46pm

LVQ - We can always move the poor people from Bangladesh to Greenland as soon as the ice cover is gone. ///

261 Dreader1962  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:14:48pm

re: #257 SixDegrees

This is an interesting argument. It reminds me of how actions against smoking began and changed over time once it's health effects became a source of concern.

First, the measures were essentially voluntary - warning labels, public service announcements. Sales to minors had been restricted - very loosely - for a long time, but then these were more strictly enforced. Advertisements in one medium followed by another and another were outlawed. Taxes on cigarettes were raised. And things became much more intrusive: limits were placed on where people could smoke, and the number of places expanded dramatically. And all the while, outright ostracism of smokers was steadily increasing. As fewer and fewer people smoked, those smokers who remained were faced with an increasing number of restrictions and outright hostility. Even today this continues, with proposals in some cities calling for bans on smoking even in one's own backyard, or within one's own home - although this latter is so extremely intrusive and enforcement so draconian it's unlikely we'll see such a thing - at least not soon.

But the point is that any such regulation, undertaken for the public good, can easily become a slippery slope that leads downward into actions against individuals in their most private moments through a series of small steps, each not terribly noticeable but whose sum total is intrusive in the extreme.

Great care needs to be exercised when implementing such policies. Left unwatched, they can expand into very unpleasant places.

At this point, any time someone advocates more restrictions on smokers, I ask why they don't advocate making tobacco products illegal. That usually shuts them up.

I don't advocate a ban, but I always hate things that are made 'kind of' illegal, especially when they are taxed disproportionately.

By the way, I've never been a smoker.

262 jayzee  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:14:54pm

re: #255 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah... Are you aware of the effects going on right now in Bangladesh or in Latin America?

Do you think that hits the news here?

Sorry to say it, but in reality, unless you are talking about suffering white folks, it just doesn't make the same press in America.

Actually we didn't give much of a fuck about the heatwaves in Europe, which those that feel AGW is fact point to as an example of what's coming down the pike. Truth is we don't care about things that aren't American generally. It aint a race thing.

263 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:15:02pm

re: #255 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah... Are you aware of the effects going on right now in Bangladesh or in Latin America?

Do you think that hits the news here?

Sorry to say it, but in reality, unless you are talking about suffering white folks, it just doesn't make the same press in America.

Doesn't mean you have to continue to spread the stereotype that white people are all racist either.

264 vxbush  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:15:26pm

re: #242 LudwigVanQuixote

You are a mathematician. You know about Volterra's predator prey curves.

The fact is that we live on a finite planet and eventually you are faced with some grim choices. There is simply no way to have our cake and eat it too.

I wish that were not the case. I too feel a sense of distaste by being forced to discuss this. However, the science does not leave us the option of pretending otherwise. In the absence of happy choices, I think a world where we have provided education and birth control to women sufficiently in general that the population stabilizes as they pursue their own careers is mess gruesome than war, famine plague and death.

Give the realities of Volterra, there really aren't other options.

Now to be fair, getting real with AGW pushes the problem off a bit.

If we do not get real with AGW though, this problem will hit us directly in the face by the end of the century if not sooner. That is just the way it is.

Of course, we could luck out, as creatures migrate due to shifting weather patterns and world wide immune systems weaken due to less nutrition and less clean water, a mass epidemic could solve the problem as well.

I do not disagree with the intent of your posting here, that we need to watch our resources to prevent catastrophic death. You seem to be assuming that we need to go ahead and have such voluntary policies now to minimize the population growth. But as was pointed out earlier, in most Western societies the population curves are below maintenance levels while in many third world countries the curves are much higher. But the carbon problems are in the civilized countries. It doesn't make sense to me to try to address carbon problems when population is decreasing (except for immigration).

Alas, now I must go offline. Cheers.

265 ubernerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:15:43pm

re: #258 wrenchwench

Are making Rush Limbaugh weaker and going after more worthy topics mutually opposed?

Doesn't seem like taking both sides, to me.

266 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:16:02pm

OT: Beck is drawing a line between GW and volunteerism to "redistribution of wealth".

267 John Neverbend  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:17:58pm

re: #78 Land Shark

Mind you, environmentalist types are only concerned with the carbon emissions of only ONE species, as in the human species. As if elephants, tigers, whales, etc. did not breathe out CO2 too.

Some of them are concerned with animal emissions. I am aware of a Clean Development Mechanism project which was precisely designed to limit methane emissions from pigs.

Here is a write-up of a related matter:

Pig emissions

268 vxbush  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:18:19pm

re: #264 vxbush

I do not disagree with the intent of your posting here, that we need to watch our resources to prevent catastrophic death. You seem to be assuming that we need to go ahead and have such voluntary policies now to minimize the population growth. But as was pointed out earlier, in most Western societies the population curves are below maintenance levels while in many third world countries the curves are much higher. But the carbon problems are in the civilized countries. It doesn't make sense to me to try to address carbon problems with population "offsets" when population is decreasing (except for immigration).

Alas, now I must go offline. Cheers.

Correction above.

269 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:18:29pm

re: #256 DaddyG

I agree that populations need to be stabalized but the best way to do it is to give attractive alternatives. Telling a poor mother in India she should have her husband use a condom is foolishly naieve. However, giving her a cell phone and a $20 loan to run her own telecommunications company in a remote village (see Grameen Bank), educating her on birth control and hygene, and providing agricultural support so she doesn't have to worry about starving; gives her the power to choose the size and affluence of her family. This is much more likely to lead to stable populations in the long run given the tendency of better fed and more affluent populations to drop their birth rates.

Parking all of the SUVs in the Western world will probably have a smaller impact in the long run than that.

I agree with you. Actually though I would modify it as follows.

1. Set up health clinics for her to discreetly get birth control that she uses.
2. Absolutely help her have a career.
3. Get rid of the SUVs anyway.

270 ryannon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:20:13pm

re: #260 DaddyG

LVQ - We can always move the poor people from Bangladesh to Greenland as soon as the ice cover is gone. ///

To Bangladesh in rubber dingies?

271 RogueOne  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:20:23pm

re: #228 CyanSnowHawk

And yet, they do. That is inescapable. It is also not a big leap from voluntary, for the common good, to mandatory, for the common good, if one is already suspicious of the group advocating the voluntary measures. Contraception efforts have been fought all over the third world as oppression from the developed nations, even though a rational case was seemingly obvious that reducing out of control population growth could help third world nations develop more quickly.

This. I can't believe it took almost 250 comments before someone made that point. Maybe it's just me, but I've never been under the impression my government is only looking out for my best interest as an individual. Helpful suggestions have a good chance of ending up being mandatory.

272 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:20:37pm

re: #269 LudwigVanQuixote
You might like this: Grameen Bank

273 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:20:41pm

re: #263 CyanSnowHawk

Doesn't mean you have to continue to spread the stereotype that white people are all racist either.

I am white. Most of the posters here are likely white. I am not racist. They are not racist. Where do you get the idea that I am claiming that all white people are racist?

However, if you think for a moment that American media doesn't report on suffering brown people that much, you are deluding yourself.

274 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:20:55pm

re: #261 Dreader1962

At this point, any time someone advocates more restrictions on smokers, I ask why they don't advocate making tobacco products illegal. That usually shuts them up.

I don't advocate a ban, but I always hate things that are made 'kind of' illegal, especially when they are taxed disproportionately.

By the way, I've never been a smoker.

Me, I'm a former smoker. A former heavy smoker. A former heavy, long-time smoker for who quitting was incredibly difficult. And someone who is now troubled - well, annoyed, really - by being in a closed, smoke-filled room. And I've seen people really go off on smokers, too - something I'd never do, and have never seen the need for.

I guess I just don't see the point of pursuing things any further. We've probably gone about as far as we can reasonably go in reducing smoking without an outright ban, and even if we went that route...it's a goddamn plant, fer cryin' out loud - people would just smuggle the seeds and grow it in National Forests, like they do marijuana, and get rich selling it not just to people who wanted it but to out and out addicts. Not worth it.

275 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:21:22pm

re: #251 ubernerd

That bogus argument sounds exactly like the leftist talking point that "fighting against terrorists only breeds more terrorists."

276 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:22:10pm

re: #272 DaddyG

You might like this: Grameen Bank

Oh I do! Good link!

277 UberNerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:23:34pm

re: #269 LudwigVanQuixote

Can all that be done with out the influence of the caste system in India? What about going an end-route around genocidal dictators in Africa?

Overall, education flourishes in societies possessing domestic peace and some semblance of equality.

278 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:23:41pm

re: #242 LudwigVanQuixote

[...]Of course, we could luck out, as creatures migrate due to shifting weather patterns and world wide immune systems weaken due to less nutrition and less clean water, a mass epidemic could solve the problem as well.

So, wishing a substantial portion of humanity to die of disease is better than insulting a NYT reporter? Contemplating the mindset for which mass death is the self-evidently best outcome to hope for gives me the same feeling as biting into a rotten fruit does.

279 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:24:06pm

re: #276 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh I do! Good link!

A former professor of mine at BYU did extensive work with microcredit. I may be zealous here but it is the most practical solution I've ever seen to alleviate poverty (ala teaching a man to fish). In societies where women have traditionally been dependent it really gives them a power base.

Perhaps Rush and Bill Maher can get together and do a special on Grameen sometime if they want to save the world.

280 b_Snark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:27:01pm

re: #157 ausador


Ok, maybe equating having less children with reduced carbon emissions is a straightforward exercise in logic. Still I can't help but admit that it just sounds a little creepy to me, it just isn't something I expect to see being used in public debate.

I think you are uncomfortable with it because it smacks of eugenics which has a horrible history.re: #152 sattv4u2

VERY slippery slope, there
So any scientist that has contrary views to yours on GW should also be criminally charged?
What is the 'standard" of not having an opposing view before being charged ? 50% plus 1 of the populace?


There is a difference between a scientist who does the research and publishes and a member of an astroturf organization being paid to promote anti-science.

281 UberNerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:28:51pm

re: #275 Charles

Not in that context, no.

The point I'm going for is that Rush wants this reaction to his normal day to day stuff.

Go after him for racial and/or racist statements and you'll nail him. Going after him for blabbering at an enviromentalist and you spend a lot of effort with little gain.

If every slight, every thing that you disagree with him on, warrants a flurry of activity, then those things that cannot and should not be written off as "entertainment" are lessened in scope and more likely to be ignored by others in the future.

282 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:29:31pm

re: #273 LudwigVanQuixote

I am white. Most of the posters here are likely white. I am not racist. They are not racist. Where do you get the idea that I am claiming that all white people are racist?

However, if you think for a moment that American media doesn't report on suffering brown people that much, you are deluding yourself.

It might have something to do with you claiming that the plight of non-whites was being ignored by whites, and the implication that it is because they are white. Let me refresh your memory.

The people currently most hard hit are Indians in South American highlands, so most white folks don't know or care, however, it will happen in places like Arizona too by mid century.

Drop any other skin color/ethnic group into that paragraph and tell me it's not disgusting.

283 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:31:00pm

re: #282 CyanSnowHawk I gotta agree the "most white folks" stuff is painting with an awfully broad brush. If you had backed down from that it would be easier to hear your other points.

284 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:33:05pm

re: #278 The Sanity Inspector

So, wishing a substantial portion of humanity to die of disease is better than insulting a NYT reporter? Contemplating the mindset for which mass death is the self-evidently best outcome to hope for gives me the same feeling as biting into a rotten fruit does.

You seem to be sarcasm impaired. If you read anything I write, you would see that I am trying to prevent such things!

285 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:33:41pm

re: #282 CyanSnowHawk

Drop any other skin color/ethnic group into that paragraph and tell me it's not disgusting.

It is disgusting... Disgusting that it is true.

286 RogueOne  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:34:16pm

re: #274 SixDegrees

+1 for being a quitter

287 UberNerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:35:21pm

re: #282 CyanSnowHawk

I'd say that "most white folks" don't care about Indian's in the South American Highlands for the same reason that most Vietnamese don't care about White Folks being ripped off by Bernie Madoff.

The white folks who "should" care about the Indians don't live in the South American Highlands.

The Vietnamese who "should" care about Bernie Madoff don't live in New York.

It's less about race and more about proximity.

288 b_Snark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:37:00pm

re: #212 Sharmuta

We're evolution's greatest achievement to date on this planet, and it's because our intelligence has allowed us to get there.

We're evolution's greatest achievement? I don't know, I kinda like dolphins and elephants.

289 UberNerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:37:33pm

re: #288 b_sharp

I like badgers.

290 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:38:17pm

re: #283 DaddyG

I gotta agree the "most white folks" stuff is painting with an awfully broad brush. If you had backed down from that it would be easier to hear your other points.

You're talking to LvQ, right?

291 dugmartsch  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:41:13pm

re: #209 Merryweather

You're right. That thought was rushed.

292 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:42:19pm

re: #290 CyanSnowHawk

You're talking to LvQ, right?

Yes- it is about proximity and perhaps what's in it for me. But that is not exclusive to white people by any stretch of the imagination.

293 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:48:18pm

re: #292 DaddyG

Yes- it is about proximity and perhaps what's in it for me. But that is not exclusive to white people by any stretch of the imagination.

Just didn't want that response to lead others to think that I made that gross generalization.

294 ryannon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:50:30pm

re: #282 CyanSnowHawk

Drop any other skin color/ethnic group into that paragraph and tell me it's not disgusting.

Drop any other skin color/ethnic group into that paragraph and it doesn't make sense. I don't see it a racism: it's a statement of fact.

295 keloyd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:59:39pm

I'm going to be the contrarian.

1. Rush intentionally overreacted and overgeneralized in his interpretation of this environmentalist, AND LGF has intentionally overreacted to Rush. We should be above participating in this circle of nonsense.

2. "Drop dead" is not a suggestion to commit suicide in 99% of cases. It is a cheeky idiom. This is obvious from the context, which I heard at lunch today.

3. If NPR was playing something more interesting, I wouldn't have had to put Rush on. Sometimes NPR's guests are good; sometimes they're as vapid as anything on Fox News.

296 so.cal.swede  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:03:56pm

i want to be up front about that i think rush is a bloated shock-jock gasbag waste of space.

that being said.

he reacted to something that to me is very creepy and needs to be reacted to: The belief that humans are bad for nature, or that we're something unnatural, or a virus on the planet that should be cured.

Saying that "family planning and contraception is good for the environment" is one of the first steps on a very scary road towards a bad, bad place.

297 keloyd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:17:32pm

I'll go a little further than So.Cal.Swede - this attitude that humanity is a cancer on Mother Earth has quasi-religious overtones. Environmental leaders (and Rush!) know that they must put their followers in a frantic, suggestible state of mind before they extract donations and uncritical loyalty from them.

Post-WW2 data has shown that middle class people tend to have small families independent of the environmentalist guilt trip. I'm guessing (hoping) that once China, India, Latin America, the Pacific Rim, and the Arab world experience a generation of peace, education, and general middle class living, they will have 2 or 3 kids at most like everyone in my comfortable Texas suburb that I see every day. We as a people are below replacement levels of breeding, so the problem will fix itself, imho.

The guilt trip has a life of its own. Our culture seems to need it. College kids who think they're too smart for church seek out the same rapturous emotional froth from Al Gore and this clown.

For myself, I'll drive a small, clean car, or motorcycle, live sensibly, and not get worked up about all the hype.

298 jpkoch  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:32:52pm

The actual issue of whether couples should limit the number of children in order to fight AGW flies in the face of most demographics. Eighteen of the twenty wealthiest nations have fertility rates below the replacement level. (The US's fertility rate is around 1.9 children/female; a few years ago it was up to 2.2). Overall, Russia, China, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Japan have fertility rates near the lowest of the low (between 1.4 - 1.1 children/female). Europe overall averages 1.7 children per female. Even in Southeast Asia, the fertility rate is dropping. Thailand just 30 years ago had a fertility rate of 5 children per female is now down to 1.6 .

Africa has been decimated with AIDs and war, and outside of East Asia and some South American nations, the fertility rates have dropped precipitously.

What this means is that the wealthiest nations will not only get older, but their populations will drop. These nations will devote more and more of their wealth to health care, retirement spending; much of these nations resources will be redistributed from the young to the elderly, and much of the accumulated wealth of seniors will be cashed out of mutual funds IRAs, etc...

Children will become a prized commodity in the near future. We will find out just how few children we have brought into this world in the very near future. Both Medicare and Social Security will face bankruptcy by 2018 because there will be few too many working people and too many elderly.

299 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:33:26pm

re: #297 keloyd

Uhuh... Except that the science is not Al Gore and Revkin is not a clown.

How about instead of assuming it is all hype or something to do with church - it really isn't, you look at the science?

300 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:34:41pm

re: #297 keloyd

Environmental leaders (and Rush!) know that they must put their followers in a frantic, suggestible state of mind before they extract donations and uncritical loyalty from them.

Anti-science propaganda.

301 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:40:55pm

re: #296 so.cal.swede

he reacted to something that to me is very creepy and needs to be reacted to: The belief that humans are bad for nature, or that we're something unnatural, or a virus on the planet that should be cured.

Humans can be bad for nature. Lots of examples around the globe and right here in the USA. The goal in my mind should be about working toward a long-term mutual existence with the planet or at least try.

302 Yashmak  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:49:49pm

re: #296 so.cal.swede

If Revkin hasn't already been accused of eugenics by commentors on Malkin's site, it's only a matter of time. It's ridiculous to believe that we can simultaneously increase the human draw on limited resources, and human impact on the environment without limits, without consequence.

No matter how dark the road may seem, I believe that it's one we're eventually going to have to go down.

303 Greengolem64  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:50:44pm

re: #11 DaddyG

In line with Revkin's thoughts:

Perhaps we should look at the proliferation of Taco Bell's and Chilis' as a source of CO2 emmissions?

/

I think you meant CH4 (methane)...

:)

304 drogheda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:53:06pm

So yesterday we see Rush mocking children who've died from H1N1 flu. Today? We see Rush comparing environmentalists who suggest having fewer children might be positive for the environment to jihadis that strap explosives to children.

So according to Rush...
Strapping explosive to children: BAD.
Having fewer children: BAD.
Mocking children who got sick and died: OK

305 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:54:08pm

re: #284 LudwigVanQuixote

You seem to be sarcasm impaired. If you read anything I write, you would see that I am trying to prevent such things!

Okay, gotcha. I've read too many sentiments like that in dead earnest over the years. Plus, we aren't cutting Rush any slack for intended sarcasm. So...

306 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:56:23pm
307 longrunningfool  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:07:23pm

It is logically consistent if distasteful.

Can I make my own list like Rush?

308 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:13:18pm

re: #236 Guanxi88

I did, perhaps there was some influence there? But no, the girl's got charisma - she's got her mother's looks & her daddy's brains, and is absolutely shameless about bending people to her will.

And she's only 4; spooky stuff. I know how Napoleon's dad must have felt.

There is no manipulator like my grandson, he is Darth Vader scary, and he's only 5.

Wanna make a shidduch?

309 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:21:47pm

Actually here's where I agree with Rush.

The rush to stop carbon emissions by people who have no clue about the true picture will inevitably lead to panic and ecofacsism. People will call for other people and their children to die so they and their 1.2 children may live.

The seed was planted with "The Population Bomb" and sprouts again today among people like My Moonbat Mother (MMM™) who think there should be baby limits.

Just one question: Who enforces the limits? And by what means?

310 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:34:48pm

re: #216 b_sharp

I agree with you regarding carrying capacity.

I think carbon credits/pay for not having kids is a very bad idea because it equates human beings per se with money. I read it as an affront to the essential dignity of the person & it more than faintly reminds me of the selling of slaves.

And it assumes that a person's impact on Co2 will be negative, talk about a prejudgement.

311 wrenchwench  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:37:30pm

re: #309 Cato the Elder

Actually here's where I agree with Rush.

The rush to stop carbon emissions by people who have no clue about the true picture will inevitably lead to panic and ecofacsism. People will call for other people and their children to die so they and their 1.2 children may live.

The seed was planted with "The Population Bomb" and sprouts again today among people like My Moonbat Mother (MMM™) who think there should be baby limits.

Just one question: Who enforces the limits? And by what means?

I had some sympathy for your perspective on this, but I think Rush is guilty of fanning the flames, and Revkin has the reasonable position. I've been poking around some of his other posts at the NYT. Like this:

In the end, there's an enduring body of evidence implying that "draconian tactics" are not necessary to head toward stable populations. One of the simplest ways to get a community on a track toward smaller family sizes, researchers have found, is finding ways to enable more girls to attend school, whether through improving access to water and fuel so children don't need to work at home or ensuring that schools have safe sanitary toilets. There are many other ways.

And this

...“Women are the key,” Ms. Roberts told me. ...I’ll be writing a lot more on programs and policies aimed at increasing the ability of women to have thriving families in prospering communities.
312 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:40:56pm

re: #295 keloyd

"Drop dead" is not a suggestion to commit suicide in 99% of cases. It is a cheeky idiom. This is obvious from the context, which I heard at lunch today.

Dunno what you heard, but in the clip I just listened to, he said "why don't you go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?" -- that's somewhat different from Cindy Brady petulantly imploring Bobby to drop dead.

313 tradewind  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:56:18pm

Context.
It's a concept that doesn't get a lot of attention anymore, because it's just so darn limiting.

314 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:00:42pm

re: #309 Cato the Elder

Exactly.

In this whole brou-ha-ha we are in danger of losing sight of the essential dignity of every human being & once we lose that, the door is open from hell.

315 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:03:23pm

re: #296 so.cal.swede

Agree, agree.

316 Wozza Matter?  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:14:45pm

nice to see the Pro-Lifers on good form again.

317 maxwellp  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:34:33pm

re: #39 Sharmuta

It kind of reminds of the demonization of Holdren. Completely distort what was said, then pitch a conniption fit so the kook base is good and riled. People don't have to read it for themselves, or comprehend it for themselves when it's being filtered "so kindly" for them already.

There are a lot of people guilty of this.

318 keloyd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:55:06pm

A few people here and in the real world have the drama turned up to 9 when it should be set at 3. Choose your battles more carefully. Otherwise you give a good hard push to the circle of overreaction that is left vs. right punditry.

I am not a fan of Rush. Rush is a buffoon, but it is dishonest to read meaning into his words that is not there. He has his little ways. the medium of talk radio requires that you say things in an over-the-top manner to be noticed and get ratings. Left and right wing pundits routinely go on these flights of fancy and speak over-broadly. Take Rush's words as seriously as any other cartoon. When Rush says "drop dead" and really means "I disagree and find your logic hypocritical", it is like when Wile. E. Coyote falls off a cliff in one scene, and appears alive and healthy in the next scene. Don't worry about it. Then when he makes a racist NFL comment, you will have your powder dry.

319 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:55:30pm

Good lord talk about taking a quote out of context.
I heard this segment today while at work and the point Rush was making is if we're exhaling poison (CO2) into the atmosphere you might as well kill yourself because that is what you are doing anyways.
Good grief!

320 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:02:57pm

And the reference to jihadists is about radical environmentalists asking us to make sacrifices in our lives but they will not make sacrifices in their lives.

321 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:05:45pm

re: #320 iceman1960

Which is doubly wrong, because the very thing Revkin is asking is for people to voluntarily take an action in their own lives.

322 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:07:09pm

re: #319 iceman1960

... Rush was making is if we're exhaling poison (CO2) into the atmosphere you might as well kill yourself because that is what you are doing anyways...

Which is a red herring popular by the deniers as the science of AGW is not about people exhaling CO2.

Limbaugh knows his audience (such as you) easily fall for such logical fallacies.

323 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:11:04pm

re: #322 freetoken

Which is a red herring popular by the deniers as the science of AGW is not about people exhaling CO2.

Limbaugh knows his audience (such as you) easily fall for such logical fallacies.

I"m sorry but Revkin was the one saying “more children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.” Revkin went on to suggest that family planning and contraception might be an important part of any plan to limit CO2 emissions.
Rush was responding to that. Nice try play again.

324 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:14:48pm

re: #323 iceman1960

I"m sorry but Revkin was the one saying “more children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.” Revkin went on to suggest that family planning and contraception might be an important part of any plan to limit CO2 emissions.
Rush was responding to that. Nice try play again.

What's factually wrong with the statement even if you leave respiration entirely out of the equation?

325 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:15:26pm

re: #323 iceman1960

I"m sorry but Revkin was the one saying “more children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.” Revkin went on to suggest that family planning and contraception might be an important part of any plan to limit CO2 emissions.
Rush was responding to that. Nice try play again.

To quote YOU:

Rush was making is if we're exhaling poison (CO2) into the atmosphere ...

Revkin is merely raising the obvious... that more people in the industrialized West will, as long as these countries depend upon carbon based fuels, simply increase emissions.

That you are the one to misunderstand this as "exhale" is fully in your m.o. as a defender of Limbaughs' vileness.

326 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:16:36pm

re: #321 freetoken

Which is doubly wrong, because the very thing Revkin is asking is for people to voluntarily take an action in their own lives.

family planning and contraception might be an important part of any plan to limit CO2 emissions.
Plan? Is it a voluntary plan he's talking about?

327 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:17:19pm

re: #323 iceman1960

If you have children do they have to eat? Do they need their food cooked, their house warmed, their school bus able to move?

328 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:18:00pm

re: #326 iceman1960

family planning and contraception might be an important part of any plan to limit CO2 emissions.
Plan? Is it a voluntary plan he's talking about?

Quit with the coyness. He clearly states it's voluntary.

329 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:19:25pm

Yes I guess you two are right. The right thing to do is quit having children.

330 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:22:08pm

re: #329 iceman1960

Yes I guess you two are right. The right thing to do is quit having children.

Hey, out of curiosity, is this you at the Montreal Escort Review Board?

331 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:22:43pm

re: #329 iceman1960

Yes I guess you two are right. The right thing to do is quit having children.

That's not what we said. That's what you said.

332 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:24:13pm

re: #330 Thanos

Hey, out of curiosity, is this you at the Montreal Escort Review Board?

No I live in Illinois. The longest I've ever been in Montreal was 15 minutes catching a flight to Quebec City.

333 Athens Runaway  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:25:16pm

re: #330 Thanos

Hey, out of curiosity, is this you at the Montreal Escort Review Board?

What a bizarre question.

334 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:26:25pm

re: #331 Thanos

That's not what we said. That's what you said.

That's Revkin's point which you apparently agree with.
When he says plan he means something that should be put to action not just a passing thought.

335 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:27:20pm

re: #333 Athens Runaway

What a bizarre question.


Must be googling Montreal Escort services

336 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:27:32pm

re: #334 iceman1960

No, it's not Revkin's point either. You know that as well. Less children, fewer children doesn't equal no children.

337 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:29:03pm

re: #336 Thanos

No, it's not Revkin's point either. You know that as well. Less children, fewer children doesn't equal no children.

So who decides in this plan for fewer children? Do I get penalized if I have 4 kids as opposed to 3?

338 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:29:07pm

re: #333 Athens Runaway

Nothing odd about it. I usually try to find posts at other places from people I talk with here so I know where they are coming from. That and a CBS Forum popped up when I googled "Iceman 1960".

339 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:29:35pm

re: #337 iceman1960

He said it should be voluntary, use a dictionary.

340 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:32:17pm

re: #339 Thanos

He said it should be voluntary, use a dictionary.

Yes a lot of things start out as voluntary. Like eating a Big Mac or having a salad until they start adding a tax to a Big Mac because it's better for you to eat the salad. I've been around long enough to see how these things start out.

341 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:32:23pm

He said it was just a thought experiment, use a dictionary.
He said he wasn't seriously suggesting it, use a dictionary.

His point is that increased population does create more carbon, and one way to limit population is through voluntary birth control.

If you reward people who have fewer children with a carbon credit that does no harm to people who want to have more children.

342 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:33:41pm

re: #340 iceman1960

Oh, ok so you are paranoid, one of those slippery slopes to tyranny sorts. Is the Fema copter hovering outside your house?

343 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:34:28pm

re: #341 Thanos

He said it was just a thought experiment, use a dictionary.
He said he wasn't seriously suggesting it, use a dictionary.

His point is that increased population does create more carbon, and one way to limit population is through voluntary birth control.

If you reward people who have fewer children with a carbon credit that does no harm to people who want to have more children.

See #340 you just proved my point

344 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:35:25pm

re: #343 iceman1960

No, you just proved your paranoia.

345 Wozza Matter?  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:36:24pm

*settled down with the popcorn and dictionary of semantics*

346 iceman1960  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:36:51pm

re: #344 Thanos

No, you just proved your paranoia.

I'm not the one googling to find out who Thanos is now am I lmao

347 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:41:20pm

re: #311 wrenchwench

Good luck. I'll be rooting for that, while I'm waiting for ecofascism.

Coming soon to a "hybrids only" parking spot near you.

348 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:42:20pm

Here's a chart for you Iceman, this is what's accomplished with voluntary birth control. People who move to cities who don't have many children are rewarded already just by the structure of society. Hit the play button

[Link: graphs.gapminder.org...]

349 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:43:20pm

re: #346 iceman1960

I google everything, it's teh internets, I might as well use it.

350 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:47:51pm

I answered your question Iceman, now answer mine. What's factually wrong with the statement Revkin made?

351 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:48:41pm
352 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:54:36pm

re: #314 Ojoe

Please explain how voluntary birth control becomes the road to hell? You are sounding like Randall Terry here.

353 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:10:20pm

re: #352 Thanos

Please explain how voluntary birth control becomes the road to hell? You are sounding like Randall Terry here.

Personally, I believe that earth is a magical shangri-la! Of infinite resources! And the streets are paved with gumdrops!

I think the road to hell is being laid with asphalt by people who willfully ignore consequences. And that includes consequences of population growth. I don't know how it will be solved. But I'd like it if people who wonder aloud how it will be solved were not smeared as hellish and told to take their own lives as HAR HAR FUNNAY SATIRE!!11111

354 Ojoe  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:09:02pm

re: #352 Thanos

No, I am saying that equating people per se with money, which is right there in the idea of carbon credits/payments for not having children, is a very very destructive idea.

And as well, the assumption that a human being is necessarily bad for the planet, which is in there too, is a very unhealthy idea.

Voluntary birth control is fine with me.

355 Fiery Red XIII  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:47:36pm

Wow, I was downdinged so much just for saying I kind of understand? How many of you ever, even for a second, think "they said all we exhale is a pollutant, if they wanna complain, maybe they should take the 1st step..." With nothing but a fleeting thought or just an understanding that they told you by breathing you pollute, but they do not apply that standard to themselves.


Red

356 Fiery Red XIII  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:49:19pm

re: #54 SixDegrees
As someone whos worked w/animal research, and sees insulin often, much of it is from swine. And I've learned about saving people based on work w/bovine...Cow flatulance kills the planet, kill the cows.

Red

357 Fiery Red XIII  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:56:31pm

I guess this is the best way to put my analogy: How many people whining about babies Carbon have kids, but make excuses for themselves (Like PETAs VP saying her life is worth more for the animals).? How many make excuses for their kids, but tell us not to have (x amount of) kids?

Red

358 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:39:09pm

re: #357 Fiery Red XIII

Go back to Final Fantasy, troll. We all got it, PETA sucks. That ain't the argument. If you need help building your straw man for your limit break, Hot Air is thataway.

359 Sacred Plants  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 12:49:49am

This clueless hatred of radical environmentalists appears to be a case of attacking the messenger of the bad news. Any so-called pundit should know (and this NYT writer probably did) that the more radical a given environmentialist will consider himself, the more likely the person is to perceive the entire concept of carbon credits as a sick hoax in the first place (but not necessarily fair game for sick jokes as well). It´s just like purchasing a license to drive home drunk by buying up enough alcohol credits from sober people in the bar to cover for one´s own blood alcohol concentration.

Having said that, the challenge remains open how the considerable parts of humanity trapped in toxic pyramid schemes for their social security are to be liberated decently.

360 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:14:01am

re: #359 Sacred Plants

re: #340 iceman1960

Yes a lot of things start out as voluntary. Like eating a Big Mac or having a salad until they start adding a tax to a Big Mac because it's better for you to eat the salad. I've been around long enough to see how these things start out.

Oh noes, there is a gas guzzler tax for supercars!

HOW WILL THE REPUBLIC SURVIVE?!?!?!?! *weeps bitterly*

361 The Yankee  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 4:11:28am

I don't think that Rush really has his heart in politics. I think he is more in it for the sport of being right and the money. For instance I don't think he has any kids and has had a few girl friends. So he apparently has sex for fun and doesn't like marriage, which isn't very conservative.

I mean Rush is a smart man, just with no ethics. I think any smart/reasonable person would sooner or later have to come to the conclusion that population will some day be more of a problem then a benefit. We are at way more then 6 billion and the bigger the population gets the faster grows. (There is a video about that I need to find that is about doubling). I mean it doesn't take much thinking to get to that conclusion but it does take someone like Rush to find a way to get ratings from it.

I just can't imagine Rush being truly upset about Obama becoming president, or him loosing the chance to own a football team. Those events had to of been the happiest days of his life.

362 freetoken  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 4:24:48am

re: #361 The Yankee

So he apparently has sex for fun and doesn't like marriage, which isn't very conservative.

He's been married, and divorced, a few times.

363 The Yankee  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 4:44:27am

re: #362 freetoken

Yea but no kids, could be that he can not have any or that he came to the conclusion that it would be best for him not to have any.

I am just saying he makes it seem like not having getting a female pregnant every time you have sex with her is just like working for free, lol reference was intended.

Put it this way from the statement he made about this guy should kill himself for saying that it could be good in some way for people to have less kids. You would think that, that person would believe one should only have sex to reproduce. So you would think that he would either have a ton of kids or adopt a ton of kids. Rush as far as i can find has done neither so shouldn't react in this way unless he is...

364 spoosmith  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 5:09:59am

re: #155 Charles

I don't get why this should be controversial at all. It seems like completely straightforward common sense to me. Why should anyone get upset if other people choose to use contraception, for whatever reason? And why should anyone get upset if voluntary incentives to use contraception are offered to people?

Because it would make Jesus sad?

/


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 69 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1