Climate Change

Activist Robert Kennedy Jr. Denies He Wants to 'Jail Climate Change Deniers'—Actually Wants to 'Execute' Climate Villain Corporations and Think Tanks

|

Robert Kennedy Jr.
wikimedia

In his article "Jailing Climate Deniers" over at EcoWatch, prominent environmental activist Robert Kennedy, Jr., magnanimously allows that individual Americans—even misguided souls who question the scientific consensus on man-made global warming—have a First Amendment right to speak their piece. Corporations and think tanks, however, are another matter. Kennedy argues that such organizations do not enjoy free speech protections and therefore can and should be targeted for death by activist state attorneys general. As Kennedy explains: 

Laws in every state maintain that companies that fail to comply with prescribed standards of corporate behavior may be either dissolved or, in the case of foreign corporations, lose their rights to operate within that state's borders. These rules can be quite expansive and, in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court's ­­­­recent rulings on campaign finance law, companies, under state laws, enjoy far less protection than human beings. New York, for example, prescribes corporate death whenever a company fails to "serve the common good" and "to cause no harm."…

Any state attorney general with the will, resolve and viscera to stand to up to the dangerous and duplicitous corporate propagandists, has authority to annul the charters of each of these mercenary merchants of deceit. An attorney general with particularly potent glands could revoke the charters not just oil industry surrogates like AEI and CEI, he or she could also withdraw state operating authority from the soulless, nationless oil companies that have sponsored "Big Lie" campaigns and force them to sell their in-state assets to more responsible competitors.

Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have particularly distinguished themselves as candidates for corporate death. No other companies have worked harder or spent more money to impede the government from taking action on global warming to safeguard public welfare. Both companies have employed artifice on a massive scale and spent tens of millions of dollars to purchase fraudulent junk science. The greedy, immoral, anti-social pathology behind ExxonMobil and Koch's mendacious crusade is even starker given the open acknowledgment since 2007 by the other major oil companies including Shell, Chevron and BP, that burning oil is causing climate change.

Besides the usual suspects of ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, Kennedy offers a preliminary list of groups that he thinks deserve execution: 

Among the groups that have received millions from Exxon and Koch Industries are the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, Cooler Heads Coalition, Global Climate Coalition, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Prosperity, Heartland Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), George C. Marshall Institute, State Policy Network, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Of course, this kind of thing could get out of hand. Who knows but that some brave state attorneys-general might decide to "execute" prominent organizations that misrepresent the science on the safety of, say, biotech crops or vaccines?

For more background, see my article, "Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore." 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

79 responses to “Activist Robert Kennedy Jr. Denies He Wants to 'Jail Climate Change Deniers'—Actually Wants to 'Execute' Climate Villain Corporations and Think Tanks

  1. Came to make a reference to RFK Jr. being a militant anti-science nut when it comes to vaccines, see that it’s already been made.

    Of all of the Kennedys, why are the worst ones (Ted, RFK Jr.) the ones that actually survive?

    1. Because the ones that died didn’t live long enough for the hereditary insanity to reach full bloom.

      1. Yeah, sampling bias.

        Reckless, holier than thou assholes the lot of them. The ones who die young get to check out before the seeds planted by their congential poor judgement flower publicly.

    2. Of all of the Kennedys, why are the worst ones (Ted, RFK Jr.) the ones that actually survive?

      Because the rest die before their true inherent vileness can be seen.

  2. Facism runs in the family.

    1. Also fascism.

  3. Combine attitudes like his with the sketchy studies that claim that people have a genetic predisposition to political philosophies and religious beliefs and we are getting damn close to concentration camps.

  4. Corporations and think tanks, however, are another matter. Kennedy argues that such organizations do not enjoy free speech protections and therefore can and should be targeted for death by activist state attorneys-general.

    A think tank is defined as “a group or an institution organized for intensive research and solving of problems, especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy, or armament.”

    Why does Kennedy want to get rid of the Supreme Court?

    1. Citizens United. Amirite!

  5. Progs want to be dictators in the worst way.

    1. Check out this comment to the story:

      Dead on point! If the corporations have committed crimes against humanity, it would follow that their leadership is also responsible. “Corporate person hood” should also allow a range of legal challenges for compensation through tort law. Given the level of crises these and their minions created, I say nationalize the bastards and use the revenues to change our economic and energy course. Then slowly kill the beasts, the quicker the better. My guess that in a short time, the dystopia created will force martial law and the subsequent collapse will require some revenue source to keep the government from completely imploding, the fossil fuel industry may be a prime candidate, with all its ensuing ugliness. But there may be something satisfying about “enhanced interrogation” for these treasonous criminals.

      This is a fantasy for those people.

      1. It is. They are full on totalitarian fascists. I would guess around 20% of the electorate right now are like that. And by that I mean they would immediately sign on to repealing the Constitution, setting up a dictatorship, and imprisoning and murdering a large portion of the population.

        We live in very scary times. People like Tony and shreek are silly and ignorant and fun to laugh at. But never forget they are not alone and are profoundly evil.

        1. Then there’s that wack job cunt at the Home Office over in the UK that wants to put people she considers “subversives” on special restrictions. No public speaking, all social media posts must first be approved at the local police station. Apparently Hitler won, it just took seventy years.

      2. Check out this guy!

        They’re literally bat shit crazy.

      3. Need more Courts of the Peoplez

        1. More like Republic courts, whose only question is “are you or were you State?”

      4. Then slowly kill the beasts, the quicker the better.

        The logic, it burns.

    2. “Progs want to be dictators in the worst way.”

      And the proggy dictators are the worst way.

  6. Does he think the AG of Delaware can survive killing the goose?

  7. He’s Pol Pot without the power.

    Even worse, his voice makes it seem like he is always be on the verge of some sort breakdown. How does one get that voice? Is there some condition that causes it?

    1. How does one get that voice?

      Wait a minute… is this the same guy who does those Chavista propaganda commercials, thanking Venezuela for covering the heating bills of the exploited poor in America? Kind of wheedling, annoying voice?

      1. Nah, that’s his shitbird brother, Joe.

  8. Bob’s looking a little red in the face there. Is he a fat drunk like the rest of his family?

  9. Any state attorney general with the will, resolve and viscera to stand to up to the dangerous and duplicitous corporate propagandists, has authority to annul the charters of each of these mercenary merchants of deceit. An attorney general with particularly potent glands could revoke the charters…

    I bet that steaming pile of nonsense sounded great in his head. (“Particularly Potent Glands” would make for an excellent band name though)

    And this is all about saving the world, not politics nope nope nope. It’s just a *coincidence* that the (only) solution to the problem is to embrace his ideology lock stock and barrel. It *just so happens* that his list of wreckers and traitors to the environment are also his political opponents.

    1. I bet that steaming pile of nonsense sounded great in his head.

      “Particularly potent glands” sounded great in the original Spanish.

    2. Bet Bobby Jr hasn’t had an erection that wasn’t chemically induced in thirty years.

  10. Wow! One of two things is happening in the extreme environmental movement.

    1.) They are so confident that they think it’s time to take off the mask.
    2.) They are so desperate that they have gone insane and can’t bear to wear the mask any longer.

    I really don’t know which, but a few more incidents like this and it will become obvious to all that watermelons are red on the inside.

    1. 3.) It’s the echo-chamber that they live in. He doesn’t know that he’s a nut because all he talks to are other whack-jobs (technical term).

    2. I think it is number two. Despite finally getting their guy into the White House, things are much worse and they are worried about getting the blame. Instead of there being the permanent prog majority they thought was going to happen in 2009, more Republicans hold office today if you count state and local governments than have at any time since reconstruction. Worse still, the soft socialist governments in Europe are falling apart and the hard socialist governments like Venezuela and Argentina are causing their countries to fall apart.

      I think they feel the moment slipping out of their hands and also sense that the global warming con, which after 1989 was their best hope, is starting to be exposed. They are desperate and their language shows it. This is not the language of a confident political movement. Confident political movements lie and pretend to be reasonable because they know they don’t have to let the mask slip until its too late.

      1. I think John is right here although there is definitely some #3. The 2009 recession was a mortal blow-normal people only entertain this stuff when they don’t feel threatened. The Green left got thrown under the bus by the Red left because you got to generate wealth to redistribute it. They just don’t have the drivers seat anymore in any sense. If that 400,000 person march for climate justice happened in say 2006-07 we would never hear the end of it. It’s 2014 and it’s already out of the news cycle barely even 15 minutes of fame.

        1. Definitely some of number 3. But number 3 always happens with these kinds of movements. You can’t get people to start killing until you normalize it. And you normalize it by creating a cocoon around the movement where such talk starts to be taken for granted.

          The difference is that in a successful movement you get number three after they take power and can use all means available. When they start doing this as they are losing power, it is just another sign of desperation. At this point it is a fantasy to keep them from having to face reality.

    3. “One of two things is happening in the extreme environmental movement.”

      If it’s covered by Ron, you can be sure it’s not extreme. You may find Kennedy red on the inside, and you may even be surprised by this, but this redness means utterly banal mainstream views – commitment to economic growth and more jobs etc.

      Environmentalist thinking, or your extreme environmentalist thinking rejects many of the assumptions that the left and the right have shared over the years. To get a handle on the extreme environmentalist movement, you have to go beyond the left/right paradigm. That’s uncomfortable for many, but necessary.

      1. One of the things that happens with cult like movements, and environmentalism is most certainly that, is as things get more extreme the more reasonable members leave. As the reasonable members leave, the extreme members make up a larger and larger portion of the group. This in turn drives out more members and becomes a vicious cycle. Moreover, without the more reasonable members to keep the extremists in check or even question them, the extremists get more and more extreme. I think some of this is going on with the Greens.

        1. I don’t think this notion of environmentalism as a cult is helping you. Reasonable people don’t tend to join cults and reasonable people (or unreasonable people) don’t tend to leave them.

          I don’t see any argument or evidence for reasonable people leaving the environmental movement, leaving a vaccuum to be filled by unreasonable people.

          I agree that environmental thinking, like the rejection of ‘jobs for all’ and ‘progress’ are unconventional and frightening, just to scratch the surface. I guess in that sense they are extreme. But how is it unreasonable?

          What’s unreasonable to me is to expect to find answers to environmental challenges in thinkers like Hayek and Mises who never had exposure to the intellectual underpinnings of environmentalism like Chaos Theory, for example, which wasn’t fleshed out until the 1960s.

          1. If you think opposing prosperity and civilizational progress is not unreasonable then you know nothing about what reasonable people are doing or what they look like.

            1. As knowledge expands, what was once reasonable can become unreasonable and vice versa, is all.

          2. Are you saying that you consider RFK Jr. reasonable re: his views on Environmentalism?

            If the answer is yes, then you are a nut.
            If the answer is no, then your whole post is moot since he’s a mainstream Environmental voice.

            1. “Are you saying that you consider RFK Jr. reasonable”

              I don’t care what RFK’s views are and haven’t taken the trouble to read up on them. Same goes for Al Gore and all the other celebrity spokespersons that are trotted out in these pages.

    4. Definitely number 2. Back when people hunted whales with harpoons from row boats they would strike a mortal blow, then back off because the death throws of the whales was extremely violent. Apparently the death throws of insane political movements are similar.

    5. Environmentalists are parasites on humanity. If society collpases, they will be the first to end up in the cannibals’ stewpots.

  11. What punishment for vaccine disinformationists?

    Penn gets to beat the shit out of him.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhk7-5eBCrs

    1. The entire episode is worth watching (NSFW language/some nudity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLcOz4EKrxg

      1. Excellent. Thank you. I was on the verge of being productive 😉

    2. No punishment for vaccine disinformationists.

      It’s consistent with his global warming position. Dead people are good, you see.

  12. So he’s deranged. This isn’t news.

  13. “For a bunch of people who die so much, the Kennedys just won’t go away.”

    -Ed Anger, of the late lamented Weekly World News

  14. Activist Robert Kennedy Jr. Denies He Wants to “Jail Climate Change Deniers” – Actually Wants to “Execute” Climate Villain Corporations and Think Tanks

    Whew! Oh, man. I was becoming worried for a while and… wait, what?

    New York, for example, prescribes corporate death whenever a company fails to “serve the common good” and “to cause no harm.”

    I wonder if that means RKJ is saying the Attorney General of the State of New York makes up laws in his mind whenever the situation demands it, or if RKJ is simply bloviating.

  15. The greedy, immoral, anti-social pathology behind ExxonMobil and Koch’s mendacious crusade is even starker given the open acknowledgment since 2007 by the other major oil companies including Shell, Chevron and BP, that burning oil is causing climate change.

    It kind of sounds like a Fatwa, doesn’t it?

    And still the little red marxians want to think they didn’t invent a new religion?

    1. “Inquisition” works, too.

  16. Altogether now! Scratch a lefty…pause…find an impulse to kill.

  17. Hey, I can’t imagine any negative side effects to legally suppressing a whole host of what appear to be solely conservative groups and essentially making it impossible for the right to use corporate law as a vehicle to organize while allowing the left to do so unimpeded.

    Surely the masses of gun-owning, paranoid conservatives out there will just “welp, guess we can’t meaningfully be involved in politics anymore, oh well, please just be gentle with my bunghole Mr. Kennedy.”

    1. Anders Behring Breivik would probably agree.

  18. In this spirit, I submit that Warren Buffet be imprisoned for all of the people he’s killed by denying them insurance.

  19. Crazy people are protected by the First Amendment, too.

    You win this round, Kennedy.

    1. Until they become a danger to themselves or others. Then they get a rubber room, a nice coat that laces tightly up the back, and a cocktail.

      http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg……975af0.jpg

  20. the soulless, nationless oil companies that have sponsored “Big Lie” campaigns

    Hurry! To the fainting couch, Buttboy!

  21. Capitalism is not a suicide pact. Capitalism is less worthy of sustaining than the human species itself. The longer you guys embarrass yourselves by being anti-science dingbats, and the longer oil and coal interests prevent action, the more extreme the actions necessary will be. The fact that most of the peasants here are outright science deniers can mean nothing else but that you don’t have real solutions to the problem.

    So for the sake of argument let’s assume that the mainstream scientific view of climate change is accurate. What is the appropriate punishment for those who have worked to obstruct action in a way that will cause the deaths or displacement of millions? Same punishment we handed out to bankers for the global financial crisis, perhaps?

    1. So for the sake of argument let’s assume that the mainstream scientific view of climate change our view of Progressive economics is accurate. What is the appropriate punishment for those who have worked to obstruct action in a way that will cause the deaths or displacement of millions?

      1. You could attempt an answer to the question. It should not be difficult to do a thought experiment in which it is assumed that facts are true.

    2. Same punishment handed out to government officials who mess up really badly.

      The worst “obstructors” will get a paid vacation, then resign with their full pension/retirement intact.

    3. So for the sake of argument let’s assume that the mainstream scientific view of climate change is accurate. What is the appropriate punishment for those who have worked to obstruct action in a way that will cause the deaths or displacement of millions?

      The mainstream view of science is that millions will not be displaced, jackass.

      What? Yes that’s right. The real story may not be in the IPCC rowback on temperature ranges, or its cack-handed “explanations” for the stalling temperatures. It may in fact all be in this table. Be sure to look for yourself. Every single catastrophic scenario bar one has a rating of “Very unlikely” or “Exceptionally unlikely” and/or has “low confidence”. The only disaster scenario that the IPCC consider at all likely in the possible lifetimes of many of us alive now is “Disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice”, which itself has a ‘likely’ rating and liable to occur by mid century with medium confidence. As the litany of climate disasters go, that’s it

      I wish you science denying cultists would take up snake handling or something and stop threatening my kids futures with your civilization-hating superstitions.

      1. Please do not link me to sites I’ve never heard of containing articles written by anonymous people and claim to be representing the mainstream scientific view of something. I will accept mainstream scientific sources and even Wikipedia. Thanks.

        1. The table I linked to is from the latest IPCC assessment Tonykins, and the web post is the report from someone attending IPCC Lead Author Matt Collins lecture on climactic impacts of global warming.

          Your refusal to look at mainstream science is, however, noted.

          1. One thing I should add is that there isn’t such a thing as mainstream science.

            Science is a process for testing ideas on how things work and throwing out the ideas that are shown to be wrong. What people term ‘mainstream science’ are the collection of hypotheses that are widely accepted as being correct. But, almost every hypothesis that is in the mainstream is likely to be falsified at some point, because they are formulated to explain one set of observations limited to the domain of observations humans are capable of making at one particular point in time, and as time moves forward, that domain of capability is always growing.

            The IPCC is not a very good scientific institution as it was intended to prove a hypothesis as being true (that manmade CO2 was triggering a climactic catastrophe) rather than to act as a clearing house for what observations that was hypothesis neutral. And as the observations failed to back up the hypothesis, they first tried to introduce grey literature (advocacy pieces from activist organizations like Greenpeace and WWF originally intended to scare people into giving them money), got caught at it and grudgingly have had to become more grounded in the observations.

            And the various measures on CO2’s impact on climate are converging on a number between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C for every doubling of CO2. with the positive feedbacks postulated as causing catastrophe notably having failed to appear.

            1. Here is the IPCC on how calculating threat levels is a shaky concept.

              Here is an explanation of how the IPCC tends to understate threats.

              1. Tony, Working group III discusses policy. Working Group I discusses the physical science. They are the source of the table I linked to.

                As to your link to Skeptical Science, all but one of the claims they make is wrong or irrelevant:

                CO2 output from fossil fuels: observed emissions are close to the worst-case projections made by the IPCC, despite them offering a range of potential emission scenarios. (In fact, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years).

                If CO2 sensitivity is low (as observations and some newer models are implying), then higher emissions are irrelevant.

                Sea-level rise is accelerating faster than the IPCC predicted. Actual sea-level rise is 80% higher than the median IPCC projection. By 2100 sea-level rise was predicted by the IPCC to be in the range of 18-59 cm. It is now believed that figure may be far too low, because estimates of contributions from Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps were excluded from AR4 because the data was not considered reliable. (This omission hardly supports the notion that the IPCC seeks to exaggerate global warming trends).

                This claim is utter bullshit.

                1. Each Arctic summer, sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report. The Arctic is experiencing a long-term loss of multi-year ice which is also accelerating.

                  More bullshit.

                  The body of scientific literature has consistently shown that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more global surface warming than has been observed over the past half century, whereas the IPCC only says that greenhouse gases are responsible for “most” observed warming over this timeframe.

                  More bullshit: The papers saying that there should be more warming than observed are all basing that assertion on models which consistently run hot. Models aren’t observations, they are predictions.

                  Perhaps you should file a truth in advertising claim against SkS for not calling themselves “Credulous Superstitions”?

                2. Why should we credit Middleton’s theory any more than the 90 scientists whom he’s opposing?

                  Also, didn’t you find Middleton’s argument ridiculous? He wrote, “If mankind and our infrastructure adapted to this?” in reference to the Holocene Transgression. In 12,000 BC, when this started, our ‘infrastructure’ consisted of little more than a fur loin cloth and a wooden club. Comparing this to our infrastructure of a city like New York today is evidence that he’s not thought this through.

                  1. Middleton, it seems has a BS in geology and works for the oil industry. His corpus of published work is limited to a handful of tendentious blog posts such as the one linked to here.

            2. that means the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas decreases with increasing CO2 concentration.

    4. What is the appropriate punishment for those who have worked to obstruct action in a way that will cause the deaths or displacement of millions?

      We’re not like you, Tony, so I’m guessing everyone here will say, “nothing.” Except maybe shaming.

      If you truly believe in a democratic political process, punishing those who try to be a part of it because they worked for the “wrong side” is antithetical to the process, isn’t it?

      1. No, I think people who are even indirectly responsible for millions of human deaths should be punished.

        1. As King Henry V asked the Earl of Cambridge and Lord Scroop, what should their punishment be, Tony?

        2. Then anyone who has ever supported communism should be punished.

          1. Indeed.

            1. We could also expand that to the useful idiots who thought they were *only* supporting the welfare state without understanding that welfare and warfare have gone hand in hand.

              Tony, as usual, is clueless to where his own argument leads.

    5. Do you oppose unleashing our entire nuclear arsenal on the Gaza Strip to stop terrorism and global warming?

      If so, not only do you hate Jews, you also hate the planet.

  22. So basically, corporations are people in that they can be targets for expropriation by the state and demands that they pay “their fair share”. but not for any unauthorized commerce or free speech?

    Yeah, you’re totally not fascists.

  23. I say it once and I will say it again. I hate the fucking Kennedys. Their a bunch of egotistical blowhards, the whole “Camelot” thing was a bull shit myth made up by the liberal media, because liberals are control freaks and they’d like nothing more than a monarch like tyrant to run everything. Fuck Robert Kennedy Jr., little twerp, bet he turns that perfectly coiffed empty head of his when Soros and his various currency destroying companies “pollute the environment”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.