To the Editor of the Washington Times:
In Kennedy says climate skeptics merit jail for treason, war crimes, Washington Times, September 23, 2014, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says people who don’t believe in “dangerous man-made climate change” should be jailed.
He wants to punish us for the “crime” of exercising our First Amendment rights, demanding actual evidence to support alarmist hypotheses, and insisting that people’s needs for reliable, affordable energy be part of the conversation — and should even take precedence over unsubstantiated claims that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” posing “greater long-term consequences” than the Islamic State, terrorism or Ebola, as Secretary of State John F. Kerry recently claimed.
Mr. Kennedy needs to get his facts right. None of us says climate change “does not exist.” Global warming and cooling, “climate disruption” and “wild weather” have been “real” since Earth began.
What we challenge is assertions that human carbon-dioxide emissions have replaced the powerful, complex natural forces that caused repeated ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, droughts, storms and other fluctuations throughout Earth’s and human history. We also challenge claims that CO2 is “pollution.” This is what we exhale. It’s the trace gas (0.04 percent of our atmosphere) that enables plants to grow and makes all life on Earth possible.
What Mr. Kennedy proposes would deprive billions of people of the energy that improves, enhances and safeguards lives: fossil fuels that provide 80 percent of America’s and the world’s power. That would slash Americans’ living standards and cause millions of deaths. It is already causing millions of deaths every year in developing countries — by depriving people of modern energy and perpetuating poverty, misery, disease and premature death.
An estimated 2.8 billion people worldwide still use wood, charcoal, coal and dung in open fires to heat and cook. More than 1 billion still do not have electricity. The result is millions of deaths every year from lung and intestinal diseases. The vast majority are women and children.
My colleagues and I would gladly serve time for “treason” and “polluting” the atmosphere with life-giving CO2. Perhaps Mr. Kennedy and his comrades should also be tried and sentenced; namely, for eco-manslaughter and crimes against humanity, for the disease and death their policies cause and perpetuate.
The International Criminal Court might be the proper venue. Perhaps the climate alarmists’ trials should be held — and sentences served — in countries that have suffered the most at the hands of climate demagogues, for their war on women, children and the poor.
Finally, since he mentioned my organizations, let me suggest that people read my new climate report on www.CFACT.org and visit www.ClimateDepot.com to learn the facts about these issues.
You should pay more attention to statements you include under quotation marks. The comment you cite from Robert Kennedy Jr clearly mentions “man-made climate change”. RFK. Jr is clearly referring to the vast amounts of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, not simply just ‘exhaling’ as you deceptively imply.
Secondly, associating renewable energy with ‘millions of deaths’ is completely ludicrous. Where is your evidence that renewables kill anyone, let along ‘millions of people’? Renewable energy already provides power to tens of millions of people worldwide, yet there is no evidence whatsoever of civilization collapsing or any other kind of stupid doomsday prophecy occurring.
You know, the more I re-read this article, the more I realise there is actually nothing of factual worth in it at all. It’s all just bullshit. Really poorly argued bullshit. Good luck with your writing career, Paul Driessen. I hope CFACT pays well.
What all of you fail to mention is the fact that these very same people are responsible for the CHEM trails that are so very evident. Just what are they doing to our atmosphere? Just what are they spraying up there and how does it affect the climate that they claim we are responsible for changing?
Just when I thought the comments on this site couldn’t get any more ridiculous, chemtrail guy arrives…
What’s really ridiculous is the lack of ability to research and to stay informed. Chem trails, the effort to control weather, etc. has been going on since the mid 1940’s. Today’s version has surpassed any and all efforts in the past.
Here’s just one link to get you started:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StratosphericAerosolGeoengineering4.pdf
Bill, did you even read the first page of that report? Because I just did, and in the third sentence down it says “No technology to conduct geoengineering now exists”. It reiterates this on the second page, saying “no such technology currently exists for any of these proposed schemes”. This paper is merely a brainstorming exercise to discuss potential solutions to combat advanced climate change, assuming we drastically miss our CO2 reduction targets over the next few decades. It’s a hailmary fix when all other options are off the table.
It is also a really bad idea, something the author thoroughly notes via an examination of the potential risks, both foreseen and unforeseen, on page 20. If we do ever decide to start spewing chemicals into the stratosphere, then you’ll know things are really effed, but until then, chemtrails don’t exist.
You are right. On the first page it’s called an
ABSTRACT. As I said originally it was a place to start.
It is however, although I can not at this time find the url, a fact that this has been going on to some degree or another since WW2, and was experimented with extensively during the VietNam conflict. If by chance you wish to continue researching this, just answer me back and I will find a few other urls for you to follow.
Sorry Bill, but I’m going to sit this one out. Perhaps we’ll discuss this further in the future. Take it easy.
You want facts? Try these. We have 750,000 years of ice core data where CO2 and Temperature rise and fall in lock step. A rise of 100 ppm from 200 to 300 correlates to a rise of 10C. Now over the last 150 years, we have driven CO2 to 400 ppm, another 100 ppm rise. Yet, temperatures only rose by 1C. Clearly, the hypothesis fails.
What we are against is the manipulation of science to support socialist agendas ; i.e. Lysenkoism. The USSR used to jail people for not going along with their various Lysenkoist agendas as well.
People like RFK Jr. completely ignore that all the world’s plants would die without carbon dioxide, the very gas that the climate control freaks say is so dangerous to the world. That plants need carbon dioxide to live is a fundamental biology fact, something that every elementary school in the world should teach. So what is the excuse of people like RFK Jr and Al Gore that they do not seem to understand this fundamental scientific fact and continuously rant about the dangers of carbon dioxide? In addition, plants exhale oxygen, which is what mammals need to live. Mammals exhale carbon dioxide and inhale oxygen to live. Plants inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. These cycles are called oxygen carbon dioxide cycles: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=carbon+dioxide+oxygen+cycles&qpvt=carbon+dioxide+oxygen+cycles&FORM=IGRE
If the following report commissioned by 20 governments is even a fraction correct, this is enough to put the people behind the concerted and intentional lying and misleading of the adverse effects of excessive carbon into jail .
“Climate Change Deaths Could Total 100 Million By 2030 If World Fails To Act”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html
This generation of Kennedys not the brightest.
This generation of Kennedys is also not very bright. If not for the thuggery of Joe P, who had the delightful karma of seeing most of his sons perish with a head-shot, kennedys would just be another drunken irish blue collar clan.
It’s suspicious to me that pro-AGWers make blanket statement like- “RFK. Jr is clearly referring to the vast amounts of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels” without any substantiating the claim, after all, RFK is just another liberal, jabber talking politician. It’s easy to fool people with pseudo science especially when leading science organizations are on the funding gravy train spreading the koolaide.
A paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Jul 2014) finds that only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean out-gassing and plant respiration.
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 7273 – 7290, 2014
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/7273/2014/
doi:10.5194/acp-14-7273-2014
You can read about it here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-finds-only-375-of-atmospheric.html?spref=tw
This observation was confirmed by others like:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/analysis-ipcc-insider-inserted-false.html
Mišo Alkalaj, of the J. Stefan” Institute, is one of 24 expert climatologists of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” book, Alkalaj’s chapter exposes the fraud concerning the isotopes 13C/12C found in carbon dioxide (CO2). The 13C/12C argument may be found in IPCC’s AR4– The Physical Science Basis Working Group. According to Miso, the assumption made by the IPCC group is that the atmospheric concentration of the 13C isotope (distinctive in prehistoric plants) is fixed. They also assume C3-type plants no longer existed so wouldn’t need to be factored into the equations. But, as Miso points out, such plants “make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life.” Therefore, the decay of 95% of present-day plant material is constantly emitting the 13C- carbon dioxide, allegedly characteristic of coal combustion, at an order of magnitude (x10) greater than all human-generated emissions.
The IPCC researchers had erred about the 13C isotope as the Prentice paper was never reviewed beyond the secretive 4 walls of UN climate alarmism, it relied entirely on an internal, uncorroborated source. But this is just typical of many bureaucratic organizations, including the EPA, of using internal, manufactured ‘scientific studies’. It wouldn’t surprise me that some of the anti-Cfact bloggers are connected with organizations like Soros funded Moveon.org.
The same can be said in general of the renewable energy claims, they just look at the fuel usage and not the mining, manufacturing nor real O&M costs that far overshadow the supposed benefits of offsetting fossil fuel usage or mitigating AGW (man caused climate warming), climate change is a misdemeanor label. Technology has not enhanced them much to eliminate the mandates, exorbitant subsidies and tax breaks that allow them largely to exist.
Wikipedia:
Total Cfact revenues over the past 3 years have averaged around $3 million, as reported on the organization’s IRS Form 990 and its most recent annual audited financial statement. As of 2013, it had a 3-star (out of 4) rating from Charity Navigator and a 4-star (out of 5) rating from GuideStar.
The author left out the mass starvation because of the doubling of food prices caused by bio-fuels.
I’ll meet this latest Kennedy, devoid of a deserved head shot like so many of his felonious family, halfway. He is a pollutant. he should be jailed.