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
Africa’s 1,300-Mile Pipeline Rejects Climate Dogma And Foreign ControlJan 9, 2026A 1,300-mile fuel pipeline led by Aliko Dangote could free African nations from energy poverty while challenging Western climate pressure. […]
Scotland’s Biggest Offshore Wind Farm Wasting 77% Of Its Energy, Fleecing RatepayersJan 9, 2026Scotland’s Seagreen wind farm was paid hundreds of millions to shut down 77% of its turbines, leaving consumers to foot the bill. […]
Trump Withdrawal From Key Climate Orgs Draws Anger And PraiseJan 9, 2026Trump’s exit from the UN’s IPCC and UNFCCC sparks backlash from climate activists and praise from supporters. […]
The United Nations Went From Peacekeeping To Climate Bureaucracy, Abandoning Its MissionJan 9, 2026US taxpayers fund a UN climate bureaucracy that has drifted from its original mission: maintaining international peace and security. […]
California’s Clean Energy Math Doesn’t Work Without NuclearJan 9, 2026California’s clean energy goals must rely on nuclear power, despite decades of bans, delays, and political resistance. […]
New Scorecard Flags Three Republicans For Poor Energy Voting RecordJan 8, 2026PTF’s energy policy scorecard penalized three GOP members for opposing key legislation meant to lower costs and support American energy workers. […]
Trump Keeps Several U.S. Coal Plants Running, Defying ‘End of Coal’ PredictionsJan 8, 2026Trump administration delays retirements of U.S. coal plants as global demand hits record highs, defying ‘end of coal’ predictions. […]
Global Warming Fueled The Chola Empire, Dwarfing The VikingsJan 8, 2026While Viking raiders struggled in the cold, the Chola Empire thrived in a warm climate — building fleets, feeding millions, and dominating trade. […]
Trump Cuts U.S. Funding For 66 Globalist Organizations, Nearly Half With The U.N.Jan 8, 2026Trump cuts funding to 66 globalist organizations, nearly half UN-affiliated and opposed to US interests. […]
Net Zero At Any Cost: Britain Presses Ahead As Industries WitherJan 7, 2026Britain is pushing net zero by signing onto EU energy rules, raising power costs, and piling on levies as industry continues to shrink. […]
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