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
Trump Repeals EPA Endangerment Finding, Gutting Obama-Era Climate Power GrabFeb 12, 2026Trump scraps the EPA’s endangerment finding, collapsing the legal basis for Obama-era climate rules imposed without congressional approval. […]
Reality Hits The Washington Post’s Ever-Shrinking Climate DeskFeb 12, 2026The Washington Post’s once-bloated climate desk is shrinking as media outlets quietly retreat from years of alarmist coverage. […]
House Hearing Spotlights Foreign Funding In U.S. Climate LitigationFeb 12, 2026House lawmakers examined how foreign money is backing climate lawsuits aimed at hobbling U.S. energy companies. […]
When Real-World Data Contradicts The CO2–Temperature Climate NarrativeFeb 12, 2026Real-world data and standard statistical tests challenge the assumed causal link between CO2 levels and rising global temperatures. […]
‘The Week’ Claims Climate Change Cut U.S. Wages, Real Data Says OtherwiseFeb 12, 2026Official wage data show U.S. paychecks rising during recent mild warming, contradicting claims that climate change has cut incomes. […]
Supreme Court Deals Crushing Blow To California’s EV MandateFeb 11, 2026Supreme Court ruling opens the door to legal challenges against California’s 2035 electric vehicle mandate. […]
Repealing The Endangerment Finding Shows CO2 Was Never An ‘Existential Threat’Feb 11, 2026Repealing the EPA’s endangerment finding weakens the case for more climate spending and exposes the shaky foundation behind carbon regulation. […]
How A Scientific Myth Undergirds The Greenhouse Gas TheoryFeb 11, 2026A closer look at the 19th-century experiment behind modern greenhouse theory—and why its findings don’t hold up today. […]
EPA Rescinding The Endangerment Finding Hinges On Repealing Supreme Court PrecedentFeb 11, 2026EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding may fail in court unless the Supreme Court overturns Massachusetts v. EPA. […]
Why Climate Science Is Not SettledFeb 10, 2026Climate models, extreme weather claims, and CO2 assumptions don’t hold up when tested against real-world data. […]
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