The Kennedy clan has always been all about power - their personal power. The assassination of JFK was the best thing that ever happened to them - it made them proof against any sort of criticism. Just look at Teddy Kennedy - what a waste of protoplasm - an absolutely corrupt drunkard, who was untouchable in Congress for decades.

It looks like the magic still works for the next generation. Teddy Kennedy was at least intelligent. Robert Kennedy hasn't even got that - from all appearances, he's as dumb as a post. Yet he is still a successful politician, because no one dares criticize the relatives of JFK too harshly.

Like Little RFK, Sen Udall is a prominent Democrat who owes his success to having a famous father. He, too, wants to repeal the First Amendment - for which idea every Senate Democrat, save the one from W.Va., voted for. That group include Sen Pryor, another Democrat whose success is due to his famous father. A major proposition of this generation's Dem Party leadership - who owe their wealth and positions to inheritance - is taking away the fundamental rights of citizens to free speech, privacy, and a free press because these allow people to learn of facts these Dems want suppressed and to think for themselves. Little RFK represents mainstream Dem Party thought which advocates the suppression and repression of expression.

It's good to be king. RFK was unpantsed at the climate change tantrum in NY. He's not giving up anything, and neither am I, so the planet will just have to look out for itself.

Wondering how much larger his carbon footprint is than the average American. Of course the rules are for the lower classes not for the political class.

This guy Cooke can really write. Those are a couple of delicious paragraphs.

You know who Robert Kennedy reminds me of?

Muslim Terrorists.

He wants the same thing they do, to use the government to force orthodoxy of thought and behavior onto the public.

His cause is just.

Everyone who disagrees is *wrong*. I.e. *infidels*

And he is stupid, and smug, just like the terrorists.

I don't think the Catholic Church is the driver here. Do you?

Ted Kennedy intelligent??

According to this, he would sell his own country.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.

He also will not give up on his claim that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism. He avoids Evidence and those who disagree with him. I can not remember if it was WaPo or Slate, but he would not let the reporter or science writer get a word in. He is a big baby yet they would still vote for him in MA and probably NY or California.

Secularism (which includes the environmental movement) is a modern-day religion.

It's not based necessarily in science, but it relies on the assumption that it is; that congregants can look down their noses at the religious, referring to their unseen deity as the "flying spaghetti monster" or "imaginary best friend" to show everyone their superiority.

Like all religions, they have their venerated prophets: Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and the late Carl Sagan - scientists who denigrated religion and popularized science with introductory-level books and television programs.

Scientists whose concepts are more difficult to grasp for those not actually trained in science (Einstein, Fermi, Feynman, et al) are revered at a distance, but rarely referenced in arguments supporting the actual-science-based underpinnings of the secularist's position on evolution, origins of the universe, etc.

Secularists don't actually study science, and so are often vulnerable to pseudo-scientific fads (homeopathy, organic foods, anti-vax, etc.).

The media Inquisition is unleashed with a vengeance to put into disrepute any who dare to publicly challenge the orthodoxy; or who publicly refer to an established religion in making moral decisions or in asking for guidance in modern day life.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/

"question of climate change remains an open and rambunctious one"

That's funny.

"That's funny."

It's rambuntious enough for this RFK Jr nutjob to suggest censoring and arresting people.

There are things we still don't understand about climate change, and open debate is good. Climate scientists have given 50+ reasons why they think surface temps are not reacting the way climate models predicted. (CO2 is increasing while temps have paused for the past 13 years or so.) They still don't have a definitive answer.

Extreme weather events aren't as plentiful as the historical record indicates despite every attempt to say otherwise.

If only we knew more about the climate than what we know about chem-trails, then we could begin arresting folks. RFK Jr's priorities are backwards. Let's arrest the chem-trailers.

Whoops, sorry for the double post.

But also, what I meant about chem-trails, if it wasn't clear, is that they're real. Let's arrest Exxon-Valdez company. They're guilty. Aren't they?

I have not seen this kind of idiocy on this blog since Chuck got banned.

Let me get this straight: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., hard-core anti-vaccine nut whose continuing rantings for the past decade have helped legitimate a movement that has led to a resurgence of measles, a failure to eradicate polio and multiple infant deaths from pertussis (among other preventable diseases), wants to censor *other people* from speaking? Do I have this correct? In a just world, this guy would be left in a locked room for 20 minutes with the parents of tiny babies who have died gasping for breath because of his constant communication of his total scientific illiteracy. He might want to be cautious about trying to establish censorship of one's ideological opponents as an acceptable measure.

Why yes, I am humorless on this subject, aren't I?

Climate scientists have given 50+ reasons why they think surface temps are not reacting the way climate models predicted. (CO2 is increasing while temps have paused for the past 13 years or so.) They still don't have a definitive answer.

Thereby rendering every previous claim for their expertise absolute rubbish.

To clarify: RFK, Jr isn't the sole nut here. Show some rigor yourself if you want to sound off.

And chemtrails? Really? Wow.

Oh, yes, I do think Ted Kennedy was intelligent. Corrupt as hell, too. Sell out his country? Not only would he have done so, he did so, many times. Anything for a payday, or an increase in his personal power. The whole Kennedy clan is much the same, not that they care what peasants like us think.

Of course, it's not fair to pick on the Kennedy clan alone. We can toss in lots of others; essentially anyone who has made it to the pinnacle of politics. The process of getting to high office in politics pretty reliably filters out the honest people, leaving only the scoundrels.

The only solution to this problem involves ropes and lamp posts, but we aren't quite there yet. Give it another few years...

Those who advocate for totalitarianism always see themselves as being on the side of power. Like Robespierre and Trotsky, they never see the revolution turning on them.

And chemtrails? Really? Wow

Sorry, that was an attempt at sarcasm. Really, though, with some people, climate activism is hardly discernible from the chem-trail idiots. They co-mingle and do more damage to their cause than anything else. See: RFK Jr, the dipshit, dog dick licker.

marion,

Your comment is the best one. It is infuriating to think that this smug, arrogant, narcissist is so intellectually corrupt and scientifically illiterate to suggest that people should be censored and/or arrested for questioning him. Especially after his fraudulent vaccine propaganda. Thank you, thank you. I hope RFK Jr chokes on his food.

Regarding showing "some rigor yourself", Radwaste,
your blog post is interesting, but more recently, climate scientists have publicly recognized that they have problems explaining "the pause".

An example from the January '14 scientific journal Nature:

Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.

Just last month, a climate scientist from NASA, spoke about the pause:

Loeb said that changes in solar radiation, water vapor and aerosol particles in the air have likely played a role, but a major factor may be an El Nino-like pattern of climate variability that has historically coincided with a slowing in global warming. Loeb noted that a rise in global temperatures slowed in the 1940s as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation climate pattern was active – a pattern that similarly lasted 20-30 years.

And it's interesting that the Kennedy clan made their fortune from the Prohibition of alcohol.

Old man Kennedy supported Prohibition. I wonder why? The cocksucker didn't want competition.

What a bunch of elitist pukes.

Makes sense that this moron RFK Jr wants to prohibit carbon fuels. He'll probably sell gasoline on the black market when we're forced to use the wind and sun.

"Old man Kennedy supported Prohibition. I wonder why? The cocksucker didn't want competition."

Joe Kennedy was Irish Mafia. You can bet that he murdered and strong armed the competition to control his turf.

There is a lot of dirty laundry in the Kennedy family. This isn't even the half do it.

By all accounts John F. Kennedy's election was bought and paid for. The dead didn't start voting in Chicago recently, you know.

Hey, RFK Jr, I'll be willing to listen to what you have to say just as soon as you start living your life like you believed the words coming out of your mouth.

Same for you, AlGore, and you too, Leo deCaprio. Downsize your mansions, drive a smaller car, give up the corporate jet to fly you to such protests, don't jump in the giant SUV to drive you to the protest and back to the airport.

Where ya at, Radwaste?

What do you think about the two articles I linked to?

Mostly that you are eager to claim that humans have no effect, and have not recognized that when you burn something, the fire is the hot part.

Here is a quick question by which to demonstrate the amount of expertise that you yourself bring to the table:

When you burn a pound of gasoline, how much does the result weigh relative to that pound?

If you burn it in a clear plastic bag it will actually weight a little less, but not by much. You let the light out, which has a measurable quantity of mass. E=mc^2

Is that accurate enough for you Radwaste?

The real issue with climate science is it's ridiculous focus on CO2. There are many more ways humans have an effect on our environment. Many of which have a much larger effect than CO2.

The recent climate protests at the UN are a perfect example of the unscientific nature of our climate warriors. And RFK fits right into that mold. It is more about totalitarian socialist control and the climate stuff is just a convenient cover.

"Mostly that you are eager to claim that humans have no effect"

Huh? I didn't say that we have "no effect" on our environment.

And it's odd that you won't simply discuss the articles I linked to, but rather offer some condescending quiz to "demonstrate the amount of expertise I bring to the table."

I ain't that smart, and I ain't a nuclear waste engineer, but I'll take a stab at your question: I think it has something to do w/ the four laws of thermodynamics. Energy is not created or destroyed; it moves from one source to another -- that is, heat moves to cold. The balance of energy moving from one thing to another is called "entropy". Essentially, I think what you're getting at is that if you burn a pound of gas, the energy goes somewhere and is not destroyed? So it weighs the same?

Now, the time it took to write this, climate scientists still perplexed why their climate models can't account for lower than expected temps.

And as Ben said about Albert Einstein's theory, from Wikipedia:

"For example an electron and a positron each have rest mass. They can perish together, converting their combined rest energy into photons having electromagnetic radiant energy, but no rest mass. If this occurs within an isolated system that does not release the photons or their energy into the external surroundings, then neither the total mass nor the total energy of the system will change. The produced electromagnetic radiant energy contributes just as much to the inertia (and to any weight) of the system as did the rest mass of the electron and positron before their demise."

"If you burn it in a clear plastic bag it will actually weight a little less, but not by much. You let the light out, which has a measurable quantity of mass. E=mc^2

Is that accurate enough for you Radwaste?

Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

Go back to your schools and demand a refund. You have been cheated of an education; your answer is wrong.

Why is it that those with so little education clamor the loudest that they must be right?