L A Times article deceptively hides 750 million metric tons of U.S. Greenhouse Gas emission reductions

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

An April 16, 2017 L A Times article entitled “Climate goal in peril” presents a graph which portrays US greenhouse gas emission reductions as falling short of Obama’s voluntary and unenforceable 2015 Paris agreement pledge.


The L A Times article graph very selectively presents US greenhouse gas emissions data for years 2011 through 2015 along with a projection for year 2025 versus Obama’s Paris agreement voluntary goal for that year.

The graph also shows the minimal role (5%) that California Governor Brown’s massively costly and bureaucratically intrusive (imposed on tens of millions of California citizens) SB 32 greenhouse gas reduction targets play in Obama’s voluntary pledge.

What the Times article carefully conceals from public view is EPA data (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/inventoryexplorer/#electricitygeneration/allgas/source/all) showing that the US has already reduced its greenhouse gas emissions from peak year 2007 levels through 2015 by 763 million metric tons per year to emission levels below those last recorded in 1994.


The newly released 2017 EIA AEO report (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/) updates US CO2 emissions through year 2016 and shows emissions declining from 2015 levels as well as continuing to decline from peak year 2007 levels with forecasts of stable CO2 emissions through year 2030 without Obama’s EPA CCP “war on coal” regulations ever being in place.

The 2017 EIA AEO report shows year 2016 US CO2 and future emissions are being achieved as a consequence of the increased use of energy market available low cost natural gas which is driving down the use of coal fuel with the further benefit of lowering CO2 emissions.

Thus free energy market forces provided by fracking of natural gas are driving and controlling the reduction and future stable CO2 emission levels of the U.S. without government imposing unnecessary, costly and bureaucratically burdensome regulations on the public.


In year 2030 US CO2 emissions are forecast by EIA to be 5,210 million metric tons (without Obama’s EPA CCP) which is a reduction of 790 million metric tons and over 14% below peak year 2007 CO2 levels.

During this same period between 2007 and 2030 while the US is reducing CO2 emissions by nearly 800 million metric tons per year EIA IEO 2011 and 2016 report data shows the world’s developing nations increasing CO2 emissions by over 9,900 million metric tons per year with China and India accounting for more than 5,700 million metric tons per year of the developing nations total increase.

The massive increased CO2 emissions of the developing nations including China and India are completely acceptable under Obama’s 2015 Paris agreement.

The L A Times article ignores the huge impact on reducing US CO2 emissions brought about by the increased energy market use of natural gas, deceptively hides from view nearly 800 million metric tons of US CO2 emission reductions between 2007 and 2030 and completely fails to address the nearly 10,000 million metric tons of increased CO2 emissions from the developing nations which occur during this period that are permitted under Obama’s 2015 Paris agreement.

Additionally the Times article fails to address the flawed and failed  climate models which are at the heart of claims by climate alarmists demanding that the world undertake massively costly multi-trillion dollar efforts to reduce future CO2 emissions based on projections from these scientifically troubled and inadequate models.

In testimony provided by Dr. John Christy (https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY-WState-JChristy-20170329.pdf) to the U.S. House Committee on Science on March 29, 2017 Dr. Christy presented results showing how badly climate models performed in failing to project results of global temperatures compared to actual measured  temperatures.


Dr. Christy presented analysis showing how grossly exaggerated the climate models results were compared to measured global temperatures and his analysis concluded that the theory reflected in these models fails tests against observations with a confidence level of greater than 99%.


He further concludes that based on these tests these models are inappropriate for use in establishing “something truthful about the recent past or the future” about real world climate.


This recent L A Times article is just a continuation of the Times decades long campaign of climate alarmism built upon conjecture and speculation along with heavy use of tactics of deception and deceit in failing to address the major flaws and failures of climate alarmist claims.

The fact that even as long ago as the 2001 3rd Assessment Report the UN IPCC acknowledged that “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

This extraordinary shortcoming should have been addressed openly by the L A Times but was ignored and concealed. Instead the L A Times and other climate alarmists invented the political contrivance of “consensus” to try and hide from public view the inability of climate models to adequately address global climate issues.

The state of climate models is so inadequate and inept that efforts by climate alarmists to impose upon mankind regulatory mandates on global greenhouse gas emission targets costing trillion of dollars based on projections from such models is completely absurd and should be summarily rejected.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 17, 2017 7:51 am

CA is now emitting 250% more after shutting down SONGS nuclear plant, needing power to back up crappy RE energy.

Reply to  Walter J Horsting
April 17, 2017 8:48 am

…Well, liberal socialists have never been good at math (.Common Core) !

Paul R. Johnson
Reply to  Butch
April 17, 2017 9:59 am

Not that good at math, but able to project total U.S. CO2 emissions eight years into the future to three significant figures.

John Leggett
April 17, 2017 8:01 am

“The 2017 EIA AEO report shows year 2016 US CO2 and future emissions are being achieved as a consequence of the increased use of energy market available low cost natural gas which is driving down the use of coal fuel with the further benefit of lowering CO2 emissions.

Thus free energy market forces provided by fracking of natural gas are driving and controlling the reduction and future stable CO2 emission levels of the U.S. without government imposing unnecessary, costly and bureaucratically burdensome regulations on the public.”

I question the implication that reducing CO2 is a benefit. Increased CO2 increases plant growth and resistance to drought. There is also the implication that any warming is bad what evidence is there that a cold climate is better than a warm climate.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  John Leggett
April 17, 2017 9:56 am

I agree, sometimes we can get so caught up in making a point about the lack of necessity of stupid Eco-Fascist regulations that we forget that adding CO2 is beneficial, not detrimental, in any world other than the climate model fantasy world “Matrix” that the Eco-Fascists believe to be reality.

Reply to  John Leggett
April 18, 2017 9:47 am

Yep. That’s about where I stopped. Going to natural gas is a net benefit to the environment, but not because it emits less CO2. Because there are a multitude of other products from a coal plant that are a problem.

April 17, 2017 8:07 am

California is going to do better than their 5% number. When the outmigration picks up after these policies are enacted there is no telling how low emissions will go.

Reply to  chadb
April 17, 2017 8:23 am

I love the way the LA Times assumes that the laws in question will perform exactly as the politicians have promised.

Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 12:05 pm

Great point. I suspect that much legislation has the opposite results (or at least different results) from those advertised. Is there a report available comparing stated goals of legislation with actual results? I would love to get a copy if it exists.

Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 2:08 pm

James A. Baker who headed the group to request that POTUS consider some form/type of carbon taxes comes from California.

Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 6:21 pm

Science, Feb.8, 2017

‘A group of prominent Republicans just launched a longshot bid for a carbon tax’

“On Capitol Hill, the plan was endorsed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a climate action advocate who has proposed his own revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation with Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).”


Group included James A. Baker and others.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 7:58 pm

James A. Baker is from Houszton.

Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 8:56 pm

Steve, thanks for the Texas information.


Climate Leadership Council, London – Washington, an international organization

Re: James A. Baker
http://www.clcouncil.org, homepage

Climate Leadership Council Strategic Partners include:

WRI/World Resources Institute and others.
At: http://www.clcouncil.org/strategic-partners

Reply to  MarkW
April 18, 2017 8:41 am

New England Republicans are to the left of the Democrats from other parts of the country.

Reply to  MarkW
April 18, 2017 12:53 pm

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

Press release, Feb.8, 2017

‘Whitehouse Lauds Top Republicans’ Carbon Fee Plan’


Reply to  MarkW
April 19, 2017 8:34 am

The Department Of The Treasury

Office of Tax Analysis

Working Paper 115, January 2017

Re: Carbon tax



Reply to  MarkW
April 19, 2017 10:46 am

Congressional Budget Office, May 22, 2013

‘Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment’

“A carbon tax’s effect on the economy depends on how lawmakers would use revenues generated by the tax. The tax would help reduce U.S. emissions but would have only a modest effect on the Earth’s climate without a world wide effort.”

CBO webpage has references on this topic dating back to May 7, 2009.



george e. smith
Reply to  MarkW
April 20, 2017 11:39 am

Well Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is Lord of a land area the size of Silicon Valley; I’m talking just the peninsula side of SV.

So he’s a very important Senator.


April 17, 2017 8:13 am

Looking at the fourth graph in the post and having seen it many time, there is one model run that at least seems close to the observed measured trend. Any clue as to who produced that? It would be insightful to see the parameters used in that model run compared to the rest of the spaghetti higher in the graph. At least that single model appears to get the trend right (blind squirrel and acorn finding theories aside).

Reply to  ARW
April 17, 2017 8:50 am

Believe it or not, that is the Russian model, if I remember correctly …(97% chance) LOL

Reply to  Butch
April 17, 2017 9:01 am

..Good thing all those Electric Vehicle Taxes help pay help pay for all those road repairs….Oh, wait ….

Reply to  ARW
April 17, 2017 9:01 am

Yeah, I’d like to know that as well. Or at least have access to a really clear copy of the graph so I can identify the colors.

Bryan A
Reply to  MRW
April 17, 2017 10:03 am

It would be a nice feature if you coulf hover over the graph and have the individual runs highlight their course and indicate which model they are from. Similar to the Cryosphere Today interactive chart

Reply to  ARW
April 17, 2017 9:38 am

Any clue as to who produced that?

Bryan A
Reply to  ferdberple
April 17, 2017 10:04 am

Must be the one where they forgot to turn on the “CO2 Forcing” portion of the model

Rick C PE
Reply to  ARW
April 17, 2017 10:06 am

My thought as well. It could be argued that this (Russian?) model is at least mostly validated by the observations. Thus, all the other invalidated models should be discarded. That would leave a projection of future temperature well below an alarming level, l think.

April 17, 2017 8:14 am

Gee, can’t wait until the new gas tax is imposed on us at the end of this month to pay for road repairs. MoonBeam stole all the money for that long ago and now needs more to pilfer for the “Bullet Train” to nowhere.

Bryan A
Reply to  socabill
April 17, 2017 10:06 am

Much like the last “Gas (for road repair) Tax” of 18 cents per gallon that was paid to the General fund and never used for roads

Reply to  Bryan A
April 17, 2017 1:23 pm

That happens everywhere, when you put in a dollar earmarked for a specific purpose, they remove a $1.10 of non-earmarked funds for the same purpose.

April 17, 2017 8:20 am

Annual Anthropogenic Output of CO2=less than 4% of Natural CO2 output= about 16 ppm annually= 1 molecule of Anthropogenic CO2 for every 62,500 molecules of atmosphere. Earth’s Atmosphere needs CO2 enrichment for Plants to Thrive. Bring on the Atmospheric CO2. The more the better!! Defund the CAGW Idiots immediately if not sooner!!

Reply to  mickeldoo
April 17, 2017 9:38 am

CO₂ Is Plant Food.
..Learn It,
….Live It,
……Release It!

Bryan A
Reply to  deguello13
April 17, 2017 10:07 am

CH4 works well too as it will oxidize into CO2 and H2O
Feel free to pass that gas (outside please)

April 17, 2017 8:22 am

Liberals being deceptive. Now there’s a revelation.

Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 9:03 am

The LSM (Lame Stream Media) have for quite some time been judiciously determining which stories to cover and what information they wish to convey while OMITTING salient facts and information that don’t coincide with the story they wish to tell.
It is no longer news reporting, but news advocacy.
They have morphed from journalists to Goebbelists.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  rocketscientist
April 17, 2017 9:59 am

Maybe it should be “Gloebbelists.” LOL

Reply to  rocketscientist
April 17, 2017 10:30 am

Cute but I believe that many alarmists might not even know who Joseph Goebbels was. Lets try not to make any more complicated for the poor dears.
From their patron saint of propaganda:
“There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the **er, and this will always be “the man in the street.” Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.”

April 17, 2017 8:23 am

“Nothing so sullies the integrity of the human spirit as the subversion of science by political servitude.”

…that and the failure of the MSM to acknowledge that enslavement and report it.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  milwaukeebob
April 17, 2017 10:02 am

Yup…my favorite description of “global warming/climate change” (or whatever they call it next week), which was penned long before they started bleating about it –

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken

Dan Tauke
April 17, 2017 8:24 am

Depending on assumptions regarding the type of plants being used, it appears Natural Gas generated electricity produces 30 to 60% less C02 emissions than coal. If the free market is driving a heavier mix of natural gas due to fracking, then that appears to be the key driver here. Part of the decline since 2007 is due to the economic downturn, but the reason it isn’t climbing as fast on the return bounce is due to this mix of natural gas use. In any event, the “war on coal” C02 benefits are negligible compared to the increases from developing countries – and the cost/benefits are misunderstood as the costs are never fully quantified and the benefits are overstated due to the models.

Rob Dawg
April 17, 2017 8:25 am

Great care must be exercised when counting “California” emissions as many CA providers of electricity have fossil fuel stations just over the border in neighboring states. It is nigh on impossible to tease out the true source fuels for the Golden State.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Rob Dawg
April 17, 2017 10:06 am

There’s the most unfortunate thing – the prevailing winds are westerly, rather than easterly. It would be poetic justice if the prevailing winds would blow toward California from those neighboring states, this way you could line up coal fired power stations right across the border and let California suck the result of their own bone-headed climate policies.

April 17, 2017 8:29 am

The reductions since 2007 are almost entirely due to the recession. There have been many structural changes in our economy that resulted from the recession, including shipping more manufacturing jobs to other nations, such as China.

In other words, the most effective way to reduce emissions is by reducing the economy. The faster they want action on emissions, the greater the economic plunge to create it. With little controls on China’s emissions, you have to wonder if this chart really represents the net impact.

I can’t imagine anybody seriously claiming that the best way to reduce US emissions is by shipping jobs to China, but that is effectively what we are doing.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  lorcanbonda
April 17, 2017 10:12 am

Yeah well that’s a big part of the plan in a nutshell. Force jobs to be exported to places where they aren’t stupid enough to make themselves subject to the CO2 emission reduction requirement BS, which is of course is where the rich, politically connected scum will “invest” their money, thereby ensuring their enrichment.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
April 17, 2017 1:49 pm

The US economy as measured by GDP has more than completely recovered from the recession, and is now higher than ever.
How can you, and why would you want to, completely discount what an amazing thing the fracking revolution has for the cost of electricity generation in the US.
Vastly increased supply and enormously reduced cost for natural gas in the US, concurrent with a smoothing of the volatility in the cost of it, has been a boon in several respects, not the least of which has been, besides for lower cost and cleaner electricity generation, has been reduced cost for anyone person or business that uses nat gas for heating. Nat gas is also a raw material in many industrial processes, which have likewise benefitted.

As for power generation, it has been relatively stable, with 2007 representing a short term peak, but that peak has been matched and possibly exceeded in 2011, 2012, and in 2016.
Total power generation reached a new high in 2016.
So the report in the headline is accurate.
The decreases in CO2 output due to switching much coal use to nat gas is very real, and the decreases have continued as power generation climbed back up to and above the 2007 levels.



Reply to  Menicholas
April 17, 2017 1:54 pm

Links show graphs of net generation by renewable sources, total-all sectors (note that renewables are such a small amount of totals they do not even register at the scale of the graph, but can be seen by opening the menu at top right), and net generation from all sources total all sectors

Reply to  Menicholas
April 17, 2017 2:55 pm

First — I’m not discounting natural gas. How about if I say it this way — Carbon dioxide emissions from 2007-2011 plummeted due to the recession, but the recovery has been helped by natural gas. It’s tough to miss when you see the gray line on the chart which indicates “recession”. Total emissions dropped by 17% over that period.
comment image

The importance comes into play when people start demanding a 50% or more drop in emissions. We don’t have enough minimum wage service jobs to cover that dip in the economy.

Reply to  Menicholas
April 17, 2017 2:56 pm

{Minor edit} — per capita emissions dropped by 17%; total emissions dropped by 11%.

Reply to  Menicholas
April 17, 2017 3:35 pm

This graph you just posted does not seem to match up very well with the one posted at top.
One reason is that the one at the top is newer, and it seems they have decided their earlier numbers were incomplete…that is, wrong.
The total amounts of emissions are higher to start with, and the declines less total amount and more spread out.
Part of that may be that the top graph is greenhouse gasses, while this older one says it is only CO2.
Another part is due to the scale used…the top one shows where the zero is, while this one is more exaggerated in vertical scale, and may also be smoothed or yearly values while this one is not.
The top graph shows the majority of the reductions are in the power generation category, which as the links from the same agency I posted to show that power generation dropped a little, but was back up to the highest levels reached in 2007 within five years or less, and they also state that 2016 was the highest year yet.
I only disputed the one point though: That “The reductions since 2007 are almost entirely due to the recession”.
Since the recession is over, and the power usage is higher than ever, but the reductions remain, that is clearly not the case.
At least it seems pretty clear to me it is not the case.
You are not the only one to state this though…someone else did here somewhere.
No worries, just sayin’

Reply to  Menicholas
April 17, 2017 4:24 pm

And not just production. USA natural gas reseerves have skyrocketed from ~15 years in 2005 to ~200, yes 200 years today. This is nothing short of a game changer, like getting Lebron James to replace Spud Webb.

Reply to  Menicholas
April 17, 2017 5:33 pm

Yes, I’m aware of the distinctions of the scales. Just like you can hide trends when you change the scale, you can also illustrate them. It doesn’t change the fact that the recession is what caused the initial drop in carbon dioxide emissions.

The basic trend is the same. However, this particular graph highlights the impact of the recession.

Reply to  Menicholas
April 17, 2017 10:35 pm

Menicholas –

I suspect that the cost reductions are realized by the electricity producers. However, I’ve not seen any rate reductions, nor have I seen any rate reductions on my natural gas bill. I suspect that the rates remain high to cover the feed-in rates for renewables.

April 17, 2017 8:32 am

Bad policy that fails miserably when applied must spread to survive. That seems to be a universal rule. Like a cancerous tumor green policies destroy heathy segments of the economy until only the disease is left. The LA Times, NYT, and Washington Post have a long history of misinforming their readers by any means necessary. Fortunately their readers have become all to aware of this abandoning these rags to rage while circling the porcelain bowl of inevitability.

US MSM should have known they had a serious problem when they needed opinion policies. It isn’t the internet that is flushing them away. It’s inbreeding.

Reply to  troe
April 17, 2017 12:12 pm

Unfortunately, too many voters can’t see past their next welfare check.

Don B
April 17, 2017 8:44 am

1) Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
2) Because of rising carbon dioxide emissions from China, India, Japan, etc., it does not matter what the U.S. does (if atmospheric CO2 were actually important).

4 minute video:

Reply to  Don B
April 17, 2017 8:48 am

Except — if carbon dioxide policies cause us to shift jobs to China, India or other developing nations. If that happens, then there will be a significant impact on our economy and an increase in emissions (trading off higher emissions in China for lower emissions here.)

It’s a lose-lose.

Reply to  Don B
April 17, 2017 1:26 pm

“if atmospheric CO2 were actually important”

It is important…very important.
As the base of the entire food chain of the Earth, and the critical building block of our entire biosphere, it is arguably the most critical variable for all of life on Earth.
The increases amount in the atmosphere in the past several decades has already resulted in a greener Earth, as seen from space, increased vegetation in marginal lands due to reduced need for water, a huge increase in the growth rate of trees, and likewise a huge increase in the growth rate of plants, which has already resulted in a massive increase in agricultural yields above and beyond that which is attributable to other factors.
And if CO2 has had anything to do with any recent increases in the warmth of large parts of the planet, and/or the increasingly mild temperature regimes, with nights being less cool , days being less hot, and winters and summers being more mild…then so much the better.
We are all far better off with higher CO2, as we are with higher and less extreme temperature regimes over our planet…our ice-age having, poles perpetually deadly-cold planet.

Tom Halla
April 17, 2017 8:57 am

Given the California greens attitude towards nuclear, they do not really care much about CO2 as such.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 17, 2017 10:14 am

Well, they’re still living in the fantasy world where wind mills and solar panels will provide all the electricity anyone will need.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
April 17, 2017 12:13 pm

Wind mills, solar panels, and trillions of dollars in magic batteries.

April 17, 2017 9:03 am


Aww. Bill McKibben is upset with Prime Minister Trudeau. Bill’s back with his hyperbolic writing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/17/stop-swooning-justin-trudeau-man-disaster-planet

Reply to  MRW
April 17, 2017 2:55 pm

Not worth giving weepy bill a click.

April 17, 2017 9:17 am

Perhaps the LA Times’ biggest lie/ignorant claim, is that it predicts CO2 levels “if no action is taken,” which by that they mean no govt action. But it was fracking (which the govt tried to stop) that provided the biggest reduction of CO2 Also of large magnitude is the inability to see what’s going on technologically : electric cars are not very far from practicality, it all depends upon battery cost reductions, and if Elon Musk wasn’t lying when he claimed that his gigafactories will reduce battery costs by 33%, then once that factory starts operating, practical electric cars are here, and they will be popular for reasons that will have nothing whatsoever to do with emissions. Also on the horizon are molten salt nuclear reactors, which will surely dominate power production for the foreseeable future, beginning in less than ten years. Anyone claiming that CO2 emissions will not be severely reduced in the not-very-distant future is simply not paying attention, and is pushing a fraudulent future reality. China and India are BOTH in the forefront of molten salt reactor development, and are enthusiastic about electric cars as well.

Reply to  arthur4563
April 17, 2017 12:14 pm

Cost is only one limiting factor. The others are range, durability and charging time.
All must be solved before electric cars become practical.

Roger Knights
Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 12:53 pm

I’ve read that 2/3 of Chevy Volt owners do not get another electric car as their next vehicle.

Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 1:10 pm

And charge port availability both on the road and at home/parking place.

Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 1:48 pm

And of course they would have to pay for all of the electrical infrastructure improvements so that the grid could handle the extra load of charging all those electric cars over night.

Reply to  MarkW
April 17, 2017 6:11 pm

Bejing wants more electric vehicles (for obvious reasons). Chinese consumers want SUV’s.

Funny how so many people are alike around the world in spite of very differing cultures.


Reply to  arthur4563
April 17, 2017 2:06 pm

Unless you only drive a short distance and then can find a place to plug in and have the time to wait for a recharge, electric cars are of limited utility.
Useless for long trips. And road trips to the middle of nowhere without having to worry about anything at all?
Forget it.
They will have to have charging stations as ubiquitous as gas stations, and even then it will be necessary to have some way to fill up the battery in a few minutes…not hours.
Some way of quickly switching batteries may work, but that is far off, if achievable at all.
The most expensive single component and the one that wears out, become like propane bottles?
Good luck wit’ dat plan.

Reply to  Menicholas
April 18, 2017 8:44 am

There would have to be some way of estimating the condition of the batteries being swapped out so that appropriate charges could be applied.
I’d hate to find out that I’d replaced brand new batteries with ones that are 10 years old.

Reply to  arthur4563
April 17, 2017 5:59 pm


Mass deployment of renewable energy has had almost no effect on ’emissions’.

Anyone claiming that CO2 emissions will be severely reduced in the not-very-distant future is simply not paying attention, and is pushing a fraudulent future reality.

April 17, 2017 9:27 am

We are actually supposed to care.

April 17, 2017 9:30 am

This is the same newspaper that openly refuses to print letters to the editor questioning CAGW. LA Times “reports” (I use that term loosely) every cockamamie paper/story about ‘Climate Change’ without questioning the source or veracity. Journalism has been replaced by advocacy.

J Mac
April 17, 2017 9:33 am

Dr. Christy’s chart (Figure 3) is the ‘take-home’ message that should be displayed in every home, at every school board meeting, and in every state and federal congressional office. “Theory fails test VS observations with >99% confidence”. Says It All.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  J Mac
April 17, 2017 10:18 am

I’ll use my catch phrase again: “Observation TRUMPS theory.” ™


Bryan A
April 17, 2017 10:13 am

If CO2 were the difference in everything, And China wanted to get paid Climate Funding (or India for that matter), they should only be compensated for trying to develope through their use of more expensive energy and only when they STOP using/producing inexpensive Carbon Based energy sources.

April 17, 2017 11:26 am

The other day I looked at the LA rain data. Not much unusual there. I assume that the LA (downtown) rainfall would be more representative of the nearby Pacific Ocean than the California as overall, due to inland terrain configuration, but an input from a meteorologist would be welcome.
(click on the graph to enlarge)
Periodic appearance of groups of spikes well above average may indicate some kind of periodicity. The 11 moving average is inconclusive but the more representative 11 year low pass filter did highlight a presence of some periodic variability.
Spectral composition reveals that the LA rainfall does have a good coincidence with change in the length of day (LOD) variability. Number of factors affect change in the rate of the Earth’s rotation, one being the atmospheric circulation.
13 year component appears to be too removed from 10.75 sunspot cycle periodicity (during 1860-2015 period) for two to be linked.
28 year periodicity is close enough to 29 years and it has been observed in the monsoons of the Indochina & Japan monsoons, on the opposite side of Pacific Ocean.
(rem: as we know the Hollywood over-rated ‘artists’, the ‘goods of silver screen’, rain and and shine over the city, make the world (i.e the earth) turn around and now confirmed by the above spectral analysis. /sarc)

Sun Spot
April 17, 2017 12:32 pm

LA Times fake news

Sun Spot
Reply to  Sun Spot
April 17, 2017 12:33 pm

LA Times alternate facts

April 17, 2017 1:15 pm

In what year were the climate model runs, shown in the graph, performed?

stas peterson
April 17, 2017 1:59 pm

Save the Plant Kingdom !
End the CO2 famine !
Count the Bio Sequestration !

April 17, 2017 2:53 pm

And of course, as if CO2 anything means anything as a metric

April 17, 2017 2:59 pm

I keep wondering when they expect the “wind turbine” tax or “solar panel” tax to hit. At some point, in their lack of planning, they forget — if they are successful and people reduce emissions, they will want to recover that lost revenue. Then “Big Wind” and “Big Solar” become compelling tax targets.

April 17, 2017 8:41 pm

I liked Spud Webb much more than I do Lebron.

Reply to  Roy
April 18, 2017 8:46 am

The Hawks tried to get the NBA to allow them to make Webb’s jersey number 0.5 instead of 05.
Apparently nobody in the NBA front office has a sense of humor, because the Hawk’s were turned down.

April 18, 2017 6:28 am

I just have one question: What the hell is a … compliance instrument .. ??

All other states should ban tourist travel to California for invoking such obscure entities based on what amounts to fear of a ghost [OOEEOO!! — spooky soundtrack we play for vintage haunted-house movies].

Here’s the scary document that raised my question:



April 18, 2017 7:50 am

I understand where the LA Times wants to keep the scare-mongering going — that’s business. But then they missed the opportunity to fawn over their ex-chump-in-chief, the Obamanator. They could have at least lied that he was responsible for all the reductions.

Kalifornia Kook
April 18, 2017 9:08 am

While I’m normally against the scare mongering (and all the crap coming out of CA state government), as of this week, I am all for it!
Our Kalifornia house is sold, and we’re leaving this state for the no-nothing idiots. We’re trying to talk our close friends into following, and Jerry is doing a great job of helping us. He now just needs to impose 50% taxes on IRA withdrawals, 50% tax on gas-powered auto purchases, ban guns with more than a one-round capacity, and all my friends will be joining us!
Go, Jerry, Go!
Hey! I’ll have to change my name!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights