RFK Jr. Talks About Gore; Endorses Hillary, on ABC

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America Saturday to talk about this week’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC. The discussion began with some observations on the draft Gore movement; RFK Jr. urged people to respect Gore’s choice not to run and said that we will have to “look for leadership someplace else.”

But perhaps the most interesting part of the interview was his reply to the question of who he was endorsing for President in 2008. 

Here’s a transcript of the October 13 Good Morning America interview with Bill Weir:

Weir: “And joining us live now from Minneapolis is another man who has made protecting the environment a lifelong cause, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President of the Waterkeeper Alliance. Good morning.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: “Morning.”

Weir: “Your father ran for president, convinced that was the best way to tackle big problems, but forty years later it seems Al Gore is content to act as a citizen activist. Do you agree with that decision? Do you think he would do more good to the grand cause as a candidate?”

Kennedy: “Well, I think that’s a personal decision for him. He said he doesn’t want to run so — you know, he did win once before. [Weir laughs] But I think — at this point, he’s saying that he’s not going to run. So I think we have to look for leadership someplace else.”

Weir: “Well, let me follow that up then-”

Kennedy: “That kind of leadership.”

Weir: “Yeah. Well, if he’s not in, who do you like as the most qualified candidate on environmental issues?”

Kennedy: “You know, I think all of the Democratic candidates have said the right thing about global warming. We’ve yet to see concrete plans from anybody. John McCain on the Republican side has some genuine bona fides — although I think he’s being pulled now by the gravities of the Republican primary voters to reverse some of those — that initial good work that he’s done on the issue. All the Democrats have been good on this issue. Hillary Clinton. Johnny Edwards. Obama. Bill Richardson. Chris Dodd. They’ve all been wonderful on this issue.”

Weir: “But no endorsement this morning?”

Kennedy: “I think — I’m going to be supporting Hillary Clinton in the race. I think she has the strongest record on the environment of any of the candidates and-”

Weir: “Well, let me ask you just about the fight at large. The last poll we did at ABC was in the spring, and 56% of the people still says, said, there’s a debate among scientists as to whether or not climate change is manmade. Where’s the tipping point? And, does the message have to change in any way to get more people on board before any grand action can be-”

Kennedy: “Well, it’s not the message, it’s really the media that I think is at fault here. If — you know, the National Academy of Sciences did a study an inventory, three years ago, of all of the scientific documents that had — the peer reviewed, refereed scientific documents that had been published in the previous decade, over 10,000 documents, 10,000 scientific studies. All of them agreed on the basics: that global warming exists; that human beings are causing it; that it’s upon us now; and that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. In the scientific community, there was literally zero dissent. But at the same time, in the United States press, over 60% of the newspaper stories and, particularly, the television stories published, expressed some doubt about this issue. Why is that? The reason is because of a massive propaganda campaign by the Exxon corporation and by others — but largely funded by Exxon — that has been very, very successful at persuading the media not to cover this issue seriously and reporters simply don’t go read the science. They say, ‘Oh, well, there’s somebody out there, you know, Exxon is saying-”

Weir: “Looking for the other side.”

Kennedy: “-Exxon’s lackeys are saying this. And it’s irresponsible of the media ultimately. People think — journalists now think if they achieve balance they’ve done their job. But that’s not the job of journalism. A true journalist, their job is to go out, to discern the truth, and then to convey the truth to the American people. And that has not happened in this case. They’ve simply said, well, we’ve done our job if we’ve done balance, and it’s simply — they’ve given a really, really, really wrong impression to the American public and they’ve let down American democracy.”

Weir: “Robert Kennedy, we appreciate your thoughts this morning. Thanks for being with us.”

Copyright 2007, ABC News.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under climate change, election 2008, environment, global warming, hillary clinton, live earth, media, politics, RFK Jr., robert kennedy jr., Uncategorized

One response to “RFK Jr. Talks About Gore; Endorses Hillary, on ABC

  1. ryahoo

    Mr. Kennedy’s using outdated material:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

    In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

    The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s