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
Hardline Republicans Warn Bipartisan Permitting Reform Threatens Trump AgendaDec 16, 2025Hardline Republicans say the bipartisan SPEED Act could undermine Trump’s ability to block offshore wind projects. […]
Tories Vow To Scrap Net-Zero Car Subsidies, Lift Combustion Engine BanDec 16, 2025UK Tories will scrap millions of pounds of taxpayer-funded EV subsidies if they win the next election and end the ban on gas-powered vehicles. […]
Green New Scam Driving America’s Energy CrisisDec 16, 2025Coal closures, blue state green mandates, and costly renewables are pushing U.S. electricity rates higher while harming grid reliability. […]
EV Maker Once Bigger Than Ford And GM Shuts U.S. DealershipsDec 16, 2025Once valued higher than Ford and GM, the electric vehicle startup is closing U.S. dealerships after failing to attract American drivers. […]
Global Mean Temperature Might Be a Mathematical Illusion, New Research SuggestsDec 15, 2025New research questions whether global mean temperatures are real or just a mathematical construct, challenging standard climate science methods. […]
EU Retreats From Complete Combustion Engine Ban, Parliamentarian ClaimsDec 15, 2025EU softens its stance on internal combustion engines, replacing a full ban with emissions targets, an EU lawmaker claims. […]
Oregon Court Slams Attorney Over Undisclosed Role In Mann-Backed Climate Doom StudyDec 15, 2025An Oregon court criticized Multnomah County attorney for undisclosed involvement in Mann-backed climate study used in $51B lawsuit. […]
Countdown To Catastrophe: PBS Promotes Another False UN Climate ReportDec 15, 2025PBS uncritically promotes UN climate report that a meteorologist calls false, baseless, and disconnected from real-world data. […]
Why Climate Change Took A Back Seat To The Cost Of LivingDec 15, 2025As inflation and energy costs surged, climate politics faded from the spotlight, with affordability overtaking alarm as voters’ top priority. […]
China’s ‘Climate Hero’ Image Crumbles—Coal Still Powers Most ElectricityDec 12, 2025China’s renewable hype fades as coal still fuels the majority of its electricity, exposing the gap between perception and reality. […]
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