Senator John Kennedy (R) fired a round of questions on climate change reduction policies and goals that turned out to be devastating for Democrat Jamie Raskin.
h/t Townhall
Sen. John Kennedy Makes Climate Alarmist Democrat Look Like A Fool At Hearing
Comments 5
Recent Posts
17 Republican AGs Urge Trump Admin To Skip COP30 Over Green Energy PoliciesOct 24, 2025The attorneys general say attending COP30 would back costly, unreliable wind and solar and risk U.S. energy security. […]
Climate Expert Reveals Latest Scandal Tied To Billion-Dollar DisastersOct 24, 2025Climate Central takes over the Billion-Dollar Disasters tabulation, sparking fresh controversy over its methods and motives. […]
New Study Finds 75% Of Rising Ocean Heat Likely Natural, CO2 Not A FactorOct 24, 2025Study shows ocean warming driven mostly by natural cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions, challenging mainstream global warming narratives. […]
U.S. And Qatar Push Back On EU’s Climate Mandates That Threaten LNG ExportsOct 24, 2025U.S. and Qatari officials warn that the EU’s latest climate regulations under CSDDD could endanger Europe’s access to affordable natural gas. […]
Crazy Hill Op-Ed Demands Generals Respond To Climate Change ‘National Security’ ThreatOct 23, 2025The Hill warns of climate Armageddon unless U.S. generals join the fight against ‘Mother Nature,’ now deemed a national security threat. […]
Europe’s Energy Crisis Shows Net Zero Dogma Comes At A CostOct 23, 2025While China’s rare earth threat exposes U.S. supply chain risks, Europe’s energy crisis shows how net zero policies backfired spectacularly. […]
Democrats Ditch Climate Messaging As Rising Utility Costs Hit VotersOct 23, 2025As Democrats struggle with climate messaging, voters feel the pinch from rising utility bills and the party's costly green energy policies. […]
Lead Attorney Admits Real Goal Of Climate Lawsuits: Backdoor Carbon TaxOct 23, 2025A top lawyer spearheading climate lawsuits says the quiet part out loud: litigation is a backdoor carbon tax on oil companies and consumers. […]
How The World Meteorological Organization Lies To You—Using Your TaxesOct 22, 2025The WMO’s 2025 greenhouse gas report hides key data that undercuts the so-called climate 'crisis' narrative—funded by your tax dollars. […]
2025 Hurricane Season Is Flopping As Alarmist Predictions FailOct 22, 2025The 2025 hurricane season so far has seen no major U.S. landfalls, exposing alarmists’ failed predictions of catastrophic storms. […]
Books You May Like
Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.
Making Gore and DiCaprio squirm around a while
I’m also bothered by the careless use of carbon and carbon dioxide interchangeably, but we need to focus on what matters.
At the time of the Kyoto Treaty the US was admitting more than half the carbon dioxide of world’s nations. Therefore it appeared that a drastic reduction by the US would be significant on the world wide scale. Those who are ignorant or support agendas hitchhiking on climate change movement have refused to let go of what appeared to be the case. China has significant emissions and they are growing fast. India will continue increase it emissions. Forest fires in the Boreal Forests may not emit as much carbon dioxide as Senator Kennedy says but they amount is obviously huge. We don’t know how much carbon dioxide is emitted geologic action but it is obvious immense. Our emissions are obviously small in the context world emissions and there certainly is no justification for spending a trillion dollars a year to reduce our emissions.
“Geologic action”. Add to that the carbon dioxide released from ocean/seawater as it warms.
I don’t have the figures in front of me, but I believe the quantity released for degree C. rise is not inconsiderable.
A doubling of CO2 will result in a 1 to 1.2 degree Celsius temp rise. The effect is logarithmic, it diminishes with increasing volume. That kind of warming is no crisis, is mainly beneficial, plants, crops, trees grow much better with higher levels of CO2, make them more efficient with water use.
As usual the entire discussion is nonsensical since nobody there realizes that carbon and carbon dioxide are completely different substances. Even where the focus is on scientific matters, there is not excuse for not having good command of the language