Editorials When Rush Limbaugh and other major media morons intrude on global warming discussions
|
20 October 2009
Rush Limbaugh told New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin to kill himself today. Just another day in global warming idiocy.
Yesterday, after I blasted Rush's evil twin Joe Romm for saying similar stupid things, commenter Wolfgang asked why I didn't go after the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world. Wolfgang, it took a day.
Normally these buffoons are not worth dragging into the debate--they don't really care about global warming (and they obviously don't understand it). They're just looking for a club to beat Democrats with. If global warming disappears as an issue tomorrow, they won't pack up and go home. They'll just look for another club. Now fools like Joe Romm--he'd be out of a job, if the issue calmed down, which is why he's doing his best to stoke hysteria.
It does seem that the further up you go in the media food chain, the less the players know--or even seem to care--about the facts about global warming. Their position is pre-decided by others, and they just dip into the issue to make a dramatic pronouncement and, as Roger Pielke Jr. noted today, let people lower on the food chain fight over the details.
In this case, Limbaugh compared Revkin to a jihadist and then said, "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?"
This was in response to Revkin asking if having fewer children would be a way of lowering CO2 emissions. (The answer is, yes it would. Doesn't mean that Revkin or I advocate that--it's just simple arithmetic. There would also be more parking spaces! That's what we should really be discussing...)
Revkin is predisposed to more emphatic policy mechanisms to fight climate change than I am (in some cases), but he's an honest reporter doing an honest job, and has proven capable of resisting the alarmist 'consensus' that Rush probably thought he was attacking.
I'd tell Limbaugh to read a book--any book--but I doubt if he's capable. So I'll just comfort myself with the fantasy of him sharing a very small room with Joe Romm.
See also Revkin's Conspiracy Theory
Comments
Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. You are reaping what he has sowed, KARMA, "Palin and simple" like his followers. Don’t we all feel better?
www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html
a) A controversial, conservative radio talk show host is denied partial ownership in an NFL football team for not making comments that he was accused of making.
...while...
b) A convicted animal killer/torturer, guilty of facilitating dog fighting rings, guilty of brutally torturing and killing hundreds of dogs, is allowed to continue to be an NFL superstar and positive roll model?
What's wrong with this picture (if you have a brain)??
What is most alarming to me is the creeping tendency to demonize (destroy?) those whose stated opinions or even self-educating musings we perceive to be a threat to our own point of view. We once not only espoused tolerance in public discourse, but went so far as to lend dignity and respect to those with whom we do not agree. Sadly, that has changed. We have all become less human in the process.
Mr. Limbaugh has never hid the fact that he is an entertainer talking only about things that interest him, and he is in direct competition with other entertainers. He is also ... despite his disclaimers ... friendly to one political persuasion over the others. That so many millions of people enjoy his performance says more about their belief-structure, than anything else. I admit to sharing much of Mr. Limbaugh's basic ideological preferences, illustrated by the fact that I'm listening to his show, as I write this.
Like you, I am quite concerned about the character assassination so prevalent in academia, politics, and government (including the Fifth Estate). Creeping tendency? It's the only thing that I disagree with you on - we long ago stopped any creeping tendencies to demonize our opponents with verbal nuclear war.
I sincerely hope that this situation may change, although I don't hold any hopes that it will in my lifetime.
RSS feed for comments to this post