For 40 years, I’ve stood among the leadership of the environmental movement crafting sensible market-based solutions for reducing our deadly addiction to oil and coal.
Dear Mr Kennedy. Your claim of our deadly addiction to fossil fuels is going to be A deal breaker. I have supported you ever sense you announced. Your are the breath of fresh air that this country needs after the last three failures of President’s. But fossil fuels are what has brought millions out of poverty and fossil fuels is the source of economic growth and vitality. There is no alternative that will happen in your life time nor mine. If you truly want to win you need people like me a fiscal conservative that hates where this country is headed. To abolish fossil fuels you will condemn millions to a slow death as the food supply shrinks and the woods are stripped for sources of heat in the winter. Please do not go down this path. The country needs you to lead but to do that you have to win.
Agree with this 100%. I won’t vote for any candidate that will not acknowledge the benefits of fossil fuels and how they also protect us from climate change.
Can you please decide to put an end to geoengineering of the global weather. If this doesn’t stop then nothing will save the environment or people. Time is ticking.
The human induced greenhouse effect simply isn't a thing. CO2 comprises roughly .0004 % of the earth's atmosphere. Adding or subtracting to that is simply irrelevant.
Beyond that, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessity of life.
Good to see the focus on the actual environmental impact of this stupid sequestering concept. Now apply the same logic to windmills and industrial solar plants. The cost is not worth the benefit in every case.
I totally agree. CO2 was at a near all-time low at the start of the industrial revolution, which was right after the mini-ice-age. The levels were so low that there was almost not enough to support plant-life. The use of fossil fuels has increased the levels a bit and has greatly increased plant-life worldwide. Calling CO2 pollution is insane. When life flourished on Earth, CO2 levels were about 4,000 ppm, which was TEN TIMES the present levels.
Nobody denies the greenhouse effect. The question with climate change alarmism is whether an an increase in CO2 will cause a positive feedback loop which will destroy the Earth, or whether the atmosphere obeys the rules of homeostasis when an increase in CO2 will increase the temperature, but natural forces will cause a negative feedback. There is absolutely no evidence for a positive feedback loop from increasing CO2, as the atmospheric CO2 levels have been 10 times what they are now in the past and the Earth is still here. There's plenty of evidence for homeostasis. With no feedback, doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a 1.5 degree C increasing in average temperatures. With positive feedback (which the alarmists all insert into their models unphysical) doubling CO2 gets an increased temperature from 2.5 to 5.5 deg C. Using actual data, not models, which show homeostasis and thus negative feedback, a doubling of CO2 gives a 0.8 deg C increase in average global temperature from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. More alarmist fakery comes in when they use the 1850 global temperature, when the Earth was just coming out of the Little Ice Age, as the zero point, and claim we can't allow the temperature to increase more than 1.5 C *from then*. But who cares about 1850? We care about *today*. And, you know, today is fine. Every actual measure of human illness and death from weather-related problems is down. Numbers of hurricanes are down. Numbers of tornadoes are down. Today is fine! Measure stuff from today!
"... the atmospheric CO2 levels have been 10 times what they are now in the past and the Earth is still here."
. . .
Yes, I believe that era was when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and alligators were swimming at the North Pole. But, people were not "here" then; that world would not be very hospitable to civilization that only developed in the past ten thousand years.. Why not take a look at the "other side" of the argument? A few weeks ago, I read Michael Mann's new book "Our Fragile Moment" that discusses climate history; "actual data, not just models." You might agree with his take on positive feed backs, as Mann believes they might not be as bad as some fear. I hope he's right.
No land is closer than 16 degrees from the North Pole, so river-dwelling animals would not have swam at the Pole, but the poles were indeed warm. CO2 levels back then allowed plant and animal life to flourish. The increase in CO2 over the past century has also increased the biosphere considerably.
He just lost me. CO2 is plant food, while oil and natural gas are renewables, not "fossil" fuels. They have become so "clean" that the Left had to demonize our breath. RFK Jr. is brilliant on vaccines, but is severely compromised with respect to too many other issues, including this one. No serious conservative should ever vote for him.
the way to pull carbon from the air and store it in the ground is good poly-culture grass farming using food animals to provide the manure (and the protein). stop subsidizing bad farming practices and good regenerative farming will replace it
Unfortunately, substack has virtually little to no relavance in the real world, anymore than ewetube or any other social media platform out there, that keeps all the useless eaters and pions busy ticking in the useless text i. Virtual reality, ... at least in my piny little humble opinion that is. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that some underling in his multitude of organizational operations runs his stack and he will never see our words herein!
2. SMRs (Gen-4 nukes) are the future - and RFK needs to quit using irrelevant arguments from Gen-1, -2, -3 reactors against Gen-4. If he’s serious about carbon and pollution and the future, ONLY nukes can provide what he wants.
3. Big Oil is the roadblock to nukes because every unicorn fart of a solar or windmill project requires a fossil backup and BigOil wants those.
To stop BigOil, RFK needs to go all-in on SMRs. Now.
The whole carbon blame is total BS.
We need to stop chemical pollution not CO2.
https://realclimatescience.com/?s=Nasa+warm+period&__cf_chl_tk=ltziFufUkT1LXQnZGtrRYj01xp4D.e75H6JC9Qiri8Y-1701382269-0-gaNycGzNC_s
Dear Mr Kennedy. Your claim of our deadly addiction to fossil fuels is going to be A deal breaker. I have supported you ever sense you announced. Your are the breath of fresh air that this country needs after the last three failures of President’s. But fossil fuels are what has brought millions out of poverty and fossil fuels is the source of economic growth and vitality. There is no alternative that will happen in your life time nor mine. If you truly want to win you need people like me a fiscal conservative that hates where this country is headed. To abolish fossil fuels you will condemn millions to a slow death as the food supply shrinks and the woods are stripped for sources of heat in the winter. Please do not go down this path. The country needs you to lead but to do that you have to win.
Agree with this 100%. I won’t vote for any candidate that will not acknowledge the benefits of fossil fuels and how they also protect us from climate change.
"deadly addiction to oil and coal...." count me out.
Me too
Can you please decide to put an end to geoengineering of the global weather. If this doesn’t stop then nothing will save the environment or people. Time is ticking.
The human induced greenhouse effect simply isn't a thing. CO2 comprises roughly .0004 % of the earth's atmosphere. Adding or subtracting to that is simply irrelevant.
Beyond that, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessity of life.
Good to see the focus on the actual environmental impact of this stupid sequestering concept. Now apply the same logic to windmills and industrial solar plants. The cost is not worth the benefit in every case.
I totally agree. CO2 was at a near all-time low at the start of the industrial revolution, which was right after the mini-ice-age. The levels were so low that there was almost not enough to support plant-life. The use of fossil fuels has increased the levels a bit and has greatly increased plant-life worldwide. Calling CO2 pollution is insane. When life flourished on Earth, CO2 levels were about 4,000 ppm, which was TEN TIMES the present levels.
Nobody denies the greenhouse effect. The question with climate change alarmism is whether an an increase in CO2 will cause a positive feedback loop which will destroy the Earth, or whether the atmosphere obeys the rules of homeostasis when an increase in CO2 will increase the temperature, but natural forces will cause a negative feedback. There is absolutely no evidence for a positive feedback loop from increasing CO2, as the atmospheric CO2 levels have been 10 times what they are now in the past and the Earth is still here. There's plenty of evidence for homeostasis. With no feedback, doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a 1.5 degree C increasing in average temperatures. With positive feedback (which the alarmists all insert into their models unphysical) doubling CO2 gets an increased temperature from 2.5 to 5.5 deg C. Using actual data, not models, which show homeostasis and thus negative feedback, a doubling of CO2 gives a 0.8 deg C increase in average global temperature from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. More alarmist fakery comes in when they use the 1850 global temperature, when the Earth was just coming out of the Little Ice Age, as the zero point, and claim we can't allow the temperature to increase more than 1.5 C *from then*. But who cares about 1850? We care about *today*. And, you know, today is fine. Every actual measure of human illness and death from weather-related problems is down. Numbers of hurricanes are down. Numbers of tornadoes are down. Today is fine! Measure stuff from today!
"... the atmospheric CO2 levels have been 10 times what they are now in the past and the Earth is still here."
. . .
Yes, I believe that era was when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and alligators were swimming at the North Pole. But, people were not "here" then; that world would not be very hospitable to civilization that only developed in the past ten thousand years.. Why not take a look at the "other side" of the argument? A few weeks ago, I read Michael Mann's new book "Our Fragile Moment" that discusses climate history; "actual data, not just models." You might agree with his take on positive feed backs, as Mann believes they might not be as bad as some fear. I hope he's right.
So has he released the tree-ring data, or is he still carrying on about the completely discredited "hockey stick"?
No land is closer than 16 degrees from the North Pole, so river-dwelling animals would not have swam at the Pole, but the poles were indeed warm. CO2 levels back then allowed plant and animal life to flourish. The increase in CO2 over the past century has also increased the biosphere considerably.
Back in that day, about 300 million years ago, the continents were all together. Part of Pangea was at the north pole (just Google Pangea map, etc)
Mann the man who fakes his data.
He just lost me. CO2 is plant food, while oil and natural gas are renewables, not "fossil" fuels. They have become so "clean" that the Left had to demonize our breath. RFK Jr. is brilliant on vaccines, but is severely compromised with respect to too many other issues, including this one. No serious conservative should ever vote for him.
"but I do not insist that other people ascribe to my belief."
I have been told it's a religion.
the way to pull carbon from the air and store it in the ground is good poly-culture grass farming using food animals to provide the manure (and the protein). stop subsidizing bad farming practices and good regenerative farming will replace it
OMG
RFK Jr
This stack has been up for 4 hours.
You have 17 comments.
What's your deal, what do you want ?
You can't consider yourself a serious contender.
If you keep this up, your legacy will be that of a loser.
Unfortunately, substack has virtually little to no relavance in the real world, anymore than ewetube or any other social media platform out there, that keeps all the useless eaters and pions busy ticking in the useless text i. Virtual reality, ... at least in my piny little humble opinion that is. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that some underling in his multitude of organizational operations runs his stack and he will never see our words herein!
Wow.
Do you live in Siberia.
Wouldn't matter. ..... do you actually think your comment will get his eyre. You're funny, bro.
When you do something about those damn natural smokestacks I will be impressed.
1. The climate hoax is just that
2. SMRs (Gen-4 nukes) are the future - and RFK needs to quit using irrelevant arguments from Gen-1, -2, -3 reactors against Gen-4. If he’s serious about carbon and pollution and the future, ONLY nukes can provide what he wants.
3. Big Oil is the roadblock to nukes because every unicorn fart of a solar or windmill project requires a fossil backup and BigOil wants those.
To stop BigOil, RFK needs to go all-in on SMRs. Now.
America does not have farmers, the Midwest is an industrial HazMat waste site that produced GMO seed oils.
Climate change scam AND why and what are the globalists spraying on us?
Get’m
https://youtu.be/llcvrKDJRo0