Exiting Paris agreement brings out emissions deception by mainstream media

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

President Trumps great and defining global decision to exit the flawed and unnecessary Paris climate agreement has driven the climate alarmist mainstream media (MSM) over the brink with articles frantically supporting that only government dictated mandates should be used to establish how global energy demand and use must be controlled.

An L. A. Times article for example falsely implies that state governments lead by California (OMG!!) must take command of future U.S. emissions performance and deliver Obama’s ill-advised emissions reduction promise that President Trump has now wisely decided to abandon.

The emissions reduction leadership role for California championed by the L A Times is touted despite the fact that our state doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how it can achieve its SB 32 emissions goals nor does it have any idea of how many tens of billions it will cost nor care at all about how the state will end up dictating how all Californians must live their lives.


These seemingly panic driven articles by the MSM are completely devoid of any supporting emissions data and analysis for the U.S. and world for both present and future time periods.

Nor do they address the flawed and failed climate science built upon nothing but speculation and conjecture which is used to try and falsely justify the need for global government climate action emission mandates.

To read the biased and misleading MSM articles about the decision to exit the Paris agreement one would assume that U.S. emissions must be skyrocketing and represent a huge crisis.

In reality of course nothing could be further from the truth.

U.S. energy use data through 2016 clearly shows that our country has done an exemplary job in reducing emissions through free energy market changes with increased use of natural gas displacing coal fuel thereby reducing U.S. CO2 emissions by over 800 million metric tons since 2005.


EIA data shows 2016 U. S. CO2 emissions are 14% lower than peak year 2005 levels.


This significant reduction is of course hidden and concealed from public view by government mandate loving climate alarmists and the biased MSM.

Climate alarmist MSM articles attacking President Trump’s Paris agreement exit decision meticulously avoid any discussion of how free energy market outcomes brought about by use of fracking technology to increase natural gas supply at reduced costs have revolutionized energy markets and significantly reduced CO2 emissions without onerous and costly bureaucratic mandates from government.

The deception of hiding U.S. emissions levels is simply standard operating procedure for climate alarmist activists and the biased MSM supporting them.

Furthermore any mention of EIA data addressing future energy use forecasts for the U.S. and other world countries is also studiously avoided by climate alarmists and MSM because it so clearly exposes that their claims about the need to have government mandated reductions in U.S. emissions are completely unwarranted.

The 2016 EIA IEO report shows that future U.S. emissions growth has been curtailed because of the energy market driven increased use of natural gas.

Most importantly EIA forecasts future energy use in the U.S. is irrelevant to the continued increase of global CO2 emissions brought about by the increasing energy needs of the developing nations which EIA shows will increase global emissions by about 12,500 million metric tons by 2040.


EIA data clearly shows that free energy market forces are far superior for addressing global energy demand and use instead of politically driven government mandates which are based upon badly flawed and failed climate alarmist science speculation and conjecture.

President Trump was wise to exit the monumentally bureaucratic global government driven Paris climate agreement and his decision to do so is supported by free energy market innovation, creativity and benefits as well as the overwhelmingly flawed and failed state of climate alarmist science.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg Woods
June 4, 2017 6:11 am

The Zombies are out for blood – fight back with real science…

Curious George
Reply to  Greg Woods
June 4, 2017 8:11 am

Why don’t we start right here. There is a nice graph showing a 14% reduction of “energy-related” carbon dioxide emissions. Alarmists will counter that an energy-related CO2 is the same as transportation-related CO2 and they will want to see total emissions. We should show both, not just the number which supports our side. That’s the alarmist way. That’s politics, not science.

Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 9:02 am

Yes, transportation should be included, and I believe there is a small overall reduction when it is.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 11:41 am

Transportation is included of course under petroleum. The EIA website for 2016 emissions specifically provides graphs showing transportation and the other energy source areas. EIA notes that transportation was the only area that saw increased emissions during this period. To be clear the EIA emissions data for 2016 includes transportation and is total US CO2 emissions.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 12:01 pm

The EIA 2016 CO2 emissions data total for the U.S. is at:
This data includes electric power, transportation, industrial, commercial and residential energy sector uses.

Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 12:59 pm

Transportation fuel is not “energy related”?

Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 1:00 pm

In any case, the bottom graph shows total CO2 emissions.

Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 1:26 pm

Why is this still about CO2 emissions?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 3:26 pm

The “science” says no discernible warming for 18 years! The science shows no evidence that observed changes since the little ice age are related to CO2 levels! Sure! Let’s use science!

Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 5:53 pm

It’s concrete that isn’t included. And for the US, our old concrete is absorbing most of the CO2 the newly made concrete is emitting.

Reply to  Greg Woods
June 4, 2017 9:49 am

Forget the science – the Green Blob doesn’t care other than a a fig leaf for their political aims.
The over the top invective and government-regulations-are-the only-solution messaging we get right now from the MSM are to a T what we got when the then Conservative government in Canada had the courage to walk away from Kyoto.
Bottom political line is that without any of the US, China, India, Russia or Japan, any global climate initiative is hot air. They all know it – and note that all the lovey dovey rhetoric aside, there was no mention of sustained support for Paris in the joint EU-China communique yesterday.

Reply to  Greg Woods
June 4, 2017 11:19 am

The Cause isn’t science. Science is just a tool.

Reply to  Greg Woods
June 4, 2017 3:24 pm

“Ay, there’s the rub”.
The masses don’t know science (understanding the science requires curiosity, persistence of study, skepticism and some amount of intelligence). The masses are lazy and mostly know only celebrity, ideology, peer bias and emotion. And, they have been conditioned to trust the media.
A grandstanding local politician has pledged that our county will abide by the Paris Climate Agreement as if he has such power and has the consent of the people. Who does he think he is? Barack Obama?

Bob Kutz
Reply to  Greg Woods
June 5, 2017 8:43 am

The problem is, Zombies do not understand and are completely unwilling to read real science.

June 4, 2017 6:15 am

This is more or less like an apocalyptic cult having prophesied the end of the world on Thursday.
On Friday they decide to live their lives as if the world could end tomorrow.
The failure of prophecy only increases the belief of the faithful. We are not dealing with science or policy. We are dealing with religious fervor, and that does not die when its prophecies are falsified.

Reply to  michel
June 4, 2017 6:35 am

They sound so over the top asinine that I have to believe most people with their feet grounded in anything resembling reality are tuning this out by now. Don’t forget, we’ve been listening to the same shi*t for over 30 years . . . and nothing at all is happening. Most people aren’t idiots–unless they’ve been “educated” to be.

Reply to  Goldrider
June 4, 2017 6:53 am

You don’t know my college educated relatives. They simply ignore any information no spoon fed to them by NPR. Not kidding.

Dan Harrison
Reply to  Goldrider
June 4, 2017 10:04 am

“Most people aren’t idiots-unless they’ve been ‘educated’ to be.”
This struck a nerve. After a conversation yesterday with a very intelligent lady who leans strongly toward the “left” or “progressive” or “activist” mindset, I realized that she had been taught to reason in ways that promote this mindset. What’s going on now in our Universities is disheartening. But then, I’ve also recognized over the past few years that the old style University model has been dying a slow death for some time, due most visibly to the sky-high cost of an education and with alternatives beginning to show their mettle. (MIT currently has approximately 25,000 enrolled worldwide in a series of on-line graduate level engineering logistics (supply chain management) courses in an experimental offering through edX.org.) We have a long way to go to develop effective alternatives, but I’m beginning to see some light at the end of a long dark tunnel.

Reply to  Goldrider
June 4, 2017 10:22 am

Joel June 4, 2017 at 6:53 am
You don’t know my college educated relatives. …

The education system has a lot to answer for. When I was a kid, before a degree was necessary for any meaningful job, you went to university to learn to think.
These days … not so much.
I’m having trouble finding the link but it goes something like this: Obama was talking to a bunch of technical students and said something like, “You guys get jobs.” A university professor countered him and pointed out that her students learn to write essays based on very little evidence. In other words, she trains students to make up convincing BS out of whole cloth.
Henry Mintzberg points out that MBA students learn to make up convincing BS based on stuff they don’t understand when they do case studies. The result is that when they try management, they fail.
Educators worship Bloom’s Taxonomy. They think the goal is to get students to use high level thinking skills like evaluating and creating. They don’t see the point of actually learning facts. Apparently they have never heard of domain-specific knowledge.
What we have is a bunch of college graduates with poor thinking skills and a faith that experts can do things that experts demonstrably can’t do.

Reply to  Goldrider
June 4, 2017 12:38 pm

actually they have people who could only get jobs in education….teaching people how to only get jobs in education

Reply to  Goldrider
June 4, 2017 2:27 pm

Latitude June 4, 2017 at 12:38 pm
actually they have people who could only get jobs in education….teaching people how to only get jobs in education

Those who can, do. Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.

Reply to  Goldrider
June 5, 2017 4:07 pm

June 4, 2017 at 10:22 am
Educators worship Bloom’s Taxonomy. They think the goal is to get students to use high level thinking skills like evaluating and creating. They don’t see the point of actually learning facts. Apparently they have never heard of domain-specific knowledge.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, or maybe it’s the educators who don’t understand Bloom, but the very first level is Remember, which in the Wikipedia article explains it as

Remembering involves recognizing or remembering facts, terms, basic concepts, or answers without necessarily understanding what they mean. Its characteristics may include:
Knowledge of specifics—terminology, specific facts
Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics—conventions, trends and sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology
Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field—principles and generalizations, theories and structures

That would seem to include domain-specific knowledge, and it’s the way I remember from first hearing about it in college in 1975. But one certainly can’t exercise Evaluation and Creation without first Remembering and Understanding. Sounds like educators today want to jump over those steps. It sure seemed that way when my kids were in elementary school back in the early ’90s, and the teachers wanted the kids to start writing sentences (Creating) without first knowing how to spell (Remembering).

Reply to  Goldrider
June 6, 2017 6:00 am

James Schrumpf June 5, 2017 at 4:07 pm
… Perhaps I misunderstand you, or maybe it’s the educators who don’t understand Bloom, …
Sounds like educators today want to jump over those steps. It sure seemed that way when my kids were in elementary school back in the early ’90s, and the teachers wanted the kids to start writing sentences (Creating) without first knowing how to spell. …

You have it right.
Back in the 1950s educators began to denigrate rote memorization. By the 1970s, clear-eyed far thinking educators realized that there was no point teaching number facts because everyone would have a calculator. What crap. I really hate clear-eyed far thinking people.
The best math teacher I ever saw was Charles Ledger. His students routinely won national math awards. He began each class with the memorization and recitation of number facts. The kids weren’t allowed to use calculators until they were fluent with the number facts. Ledger covered the entire taxonomy every class. He gave the example of finding the roots of an equation. It’s about ten times as easy if you can factor numbers by inspection. Algebra is easy if you’re good at arithmetic. Calculus is easy if you’re good at algebra. Nothing is easy if you’re struggling with number facts.

Reply to  michel
June 4, 2017 7:07 am

Nor are we dealing with truly sane people. This is nutso because the proponents are nuts.

Reply to  ThomasJK
June 4, 2017 7:19 am

It’s just the latest fashion in stupidity. Something else will come alone to amuse their unthinking minds.

June 4, 2017 6:20 am

Kyle Becker’s review of 25 climate charts is the most concise and impressive pure science rebuttal I’ve seen:
Bob Dillon, M.D., Atlanta

R. Shearer
Reply to  Robert Dillon, M.D.
June 4, 2017 7:51 am

It is good. It would be nice to update some of the charts.

Reply to  Robert Dillon, M.D.
June 4, 2017 3:50 pm

The problem is that like water vapor’s >95% contribution to the greenhouse effect: >95% of the population have no ability to read charts accurately or understand what they are seeing in the charts.

Reply to  Robert Dillon, M.D.
June 5, 2017 1:06 pm

I would add , perhaps ,
to put the total Al Gore Warming in perspective .

Bruce Cobb
June 4, 2017 6:21 am

I wouldn’t say that the increased use of NG was entirely market-driven. Some has been the result of 8 years of punishing coal in a supreme effort to kill coal. That is still going on, actually, and needs to stop.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 4, 2017 7:07 am

Of course it was entirely market driven.
The closure of 5 coal plants has been announced since Trump took office, with cost being cited as the reason.
“Florida Power & Light Co. filed a petition with the Florida Public Service Commission for approval to shut down the St. Johns River Power Park at the end of this year.
SJRPP is a coal-fired power plant jointly owned by FPL and JEA, the municipally-owned electric provider for the City of Jacksonville.
The nearly 1,300 MW plant has served customers of the two utilities well for many years, but the company says it is no longer economical to operate. The power plant’s retirement is expected to save FPL customers $183 million as well as prevent more than 5.6 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.”

Reply to  Griff
June 4, 2017 12:13 pm

…that plant is closing because it’s been operating at less than 50% for years…and it’s age
Less than 50% does not pay to operate it
It’s closing because they don’t need it.

Reply to  Griff
June 4, 2017 1:37 pm

Gas, you idiotcomment image

Reply to  Griff
June 4, 2017 1:40 pm

try that graphic againcomment image

Reply to  Griff
June 5, 2017 8:25 am

Here in Florida, FP&L has been advertising (virtue signalling) their new solar panel fields.
I’m sure their solar generator is not as cost effective as their gas plants.
But hey, they’re GREEN.

Reply to  Griff
June 5, 2017 11:09 am

@AndyG55 That graphic is amusing since the green shaded section is natural gas. Took me a minute to catch that 🙂

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
June 6, 2017 6:29 am

Step 1) Punish coal for producing “evil” CO2.
Step 2 Reward renewables for not producing “evil” CO2, and give NG a pass, for producing less.
Step 3) Complain that coal is now “too expensive” to produce.
Step 4) Pretend that that is the reason coal is being killed.
Step 5) Bask in the glow that you’ve pulled the wool over without people realizing it.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 4, 2017 7:53 am

But technically, it was only the availability of inexpensive natural gas that allowed this displacement without disruption and/or drastically increased prices.

June 4, 2017 6:35 am

Never mentioned in the MSM articles is the fact that these emissions goals re in terms of “per capita”. That means that in gross numbers China and India have little if any actual reductions to achieve. Just some tweaking of efficiency.

Reply to  usurbrain
June 4, 2017 6:53 am

As I have told several alarmists recently, the best way the US can reduce ‘per capita’ CO2 emissions is to STOP FEEDING HALF THE PLANET.
That’ll reduce things a fair bit.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  ClimateOtter
June 4, 2017 7:52 am

Your plan’s results become indistinguishable from achieving the ultimate alarmist goal.

J Mac
Reply to  ClimateOtter
June 4, 2017 9:25 am

The Sierra Club concurs….

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  ClimateOtter
June 4, 2017 2:55 pm

Alan, the alarmists want to get rid of a different half.

Reply to  usurbrain
June 4, 2017 7:31 am

It is not generally understood that China’s per capita emissions are now the same as the EU’s. So the Paris proposal in fact envisages them rising well above the EU, per capita, and towards the US levels. Just as the US levels per capita decline.
This makes no sense at all if what you are interested in is lowering emissions. People who claim Paris does this on the one hand want China to carry on increasing from 10 billion now to the 15 billion or so they plan to get to in 2030. And at the same time raise their per capita emissions from EU towards US levels. And at the same time have the US drop its emissions by a couple of billion a year.
It makes absolutely no sense. Well, assuming what you are interested in is emissions and the climate. Whether it makes sense if your concerns are quite other…. probably.

R. Shearer
Reply to  michel
June 4, 2017 7:55 am

You are obviously a racist. /sarc

Reply to  usurbrain
June 4, 2017 9:32 am

Good point, usur. The AP article my local Sunday paper used Sweden as their per capita strawman. No mention of the nuclear plants or the extensive use of wood or of any other European countries..

Reply to  oeman50
June 4, 2017 9:34 am

Ah, I forgot to mention the hydro, as mentioned below.

I Came I Saw I Left
June 4, 2017 6:47 am

How do these states plan “to keep the Paris climate accord intact”? It is illegal for them to engage in agreements with foreign governments.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 4, 2017 6:50 am

Now they can say..”Hey, we tried, but Grumpy old white man Trump won’t let us” !!!!

Greg Woods
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 4, 2017 6:50 am

They can ‘volunteer their taxpayers’ money, I suppose…

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Greg Woods
June 4, 2017 9:02 am

Good point, and one that we should pursue, along with the deceptive reporting addressed by Larry’s commentary. My contribution, appearing in this morning’s Pasadena Star-News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and Whittier Daily News:

The official website of the Green Climate Fund shows that as of May 12, the U.S, was committed to giving $3 billion and had already given $1 billion, or $9.30 per capita.
Comes now Gov. Jerry Brown wanting to subject California to a continuation of the Paris climate agreement provisions. One-third of that $3 billion having already been handed over by the Obama administration, there remains another $6.20 per capita. With California’s population around 39.5 million, that comes to almost $245 million.
Governor, how do you propose to fit $244 million more into California’s budget?

We need to bombard our local media with the facts that have gone missing.

Reply to  Greg Woods
June 5, 2017 4:59 am

Juan wrote: “Governor, how do you propose to fit $244 million more into California’s budget?”
For one thing, they will ask taxpayers in other states to pay for the $275 million to repair damage to Oroville Dam caused by lack of ongoing maintenance and repair. I am sure that additional means of transference will also be found by CA political operatives.

michael hart
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 4, 2017 7:04 am

“How do these states plan “to keep the Paris climate accord intact”? It is illegal for them to engage in agreements with foreign governments.”
Primarily by just talking about it. California recently came to such an ‘agreement’ with the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon, despite the fact that Scotland doesn’t have such authority either. I can’t recall the UK government even bothering to comment.
For laughs one might also ask California about how they intend to regulate electricity generation in surrounding states that supply enough electricity to help make up for California’s deficit.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  michael hart
June 4, 2017 8:45 am

I do not need to ask because I know. California will use smoke and mirrors, pixie dust, and magic wands. California is not alone.
When we lived in Richland, Wa; our electric bill show most of our power came from coal. Not the large nuke plant 12 miles north. Not the the many large hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. Not the large wind farms in the area.
From this link, Griff would claim the PNW is 100% ghg free.
Of course if you come back and look on a cold winter night, or a hot summer day in a drought year, you will see why the old coal and nuke plants are still around.
The point here is that the mix of power on your bill depends on contracts. Unless you live off grid, do not travel by ICE, grow your own food, weave your own cloths, and do not use doctors, you use the same mix of fuels as everyone else.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  michael hart
June 4, 2017 9:42 am

Retired Kit P: So really your source of electrical power per your bill is just an accounting trick because it all goes into one grid. There is no way to distinguish where electrons come from.

J Mac
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 4, 2017 9:28 am

They can declare themselves to be ‘Climate Accord Sanctuary Cities’!
That’s what ‘social(ist) justice warriors’ do….

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 4, 2017 10:56 am

Lawsuits, argued before corrupt Federal judges, LAWSUITS

Rod Everson
June 4, 2017 7:01 am

The problem I have with this sort of argument is that the change in “emissions” was neither intentional, nor market-driven. If, for example, the technological change had gone in the other direction and coal, for whatever reason, had become much easier to obtain and cheaper to burn, a functioning free market would have seen both increased coal usage and increased “emissions.”
I put “emissions” in scare quotes for a reason. By focusing on CO2 as an “emission” that is, by implication, best minimized, we concede that it’s a pollutant that should be regulated. This was a ridiculous concept less than a decade ago, but now many fall into the trap of assuming it to be true without even realizing they’ve taken the bait. The issue isn’t whether CO2, routinely referred to as “carbon” by alarmists (and often by skeptics too, unfortunately) to make it seem even dirtier and more dangerous, is a pollutant (clearly it isn’t), but whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a steady rate for a century or two will lead to a catastrophe (i.e., CAGW).
That said, carrying the error in approach of the author even further, should nuclear power ever get the needed breakthrough that renders it cheaper, safer, and more readily available, that will likely have a far more lasting effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere eventually, although the impetus behind the change in a market economy would be cheaper, more reliable, power, rather than reducing the overall level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Whether reducing atmospheric CO2 will be a good thing or a bad thing is still, to my mind, debatable.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Rod Everson
June 4, 2017 9:41 am

@ Rod Everson June 4, 2017 at 7:01 am

should nuclear power ever get the needed breakthrough that renders it cheaper, safer, and more readily available, that will likely have a far more lasting effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere eventually …..

Well now, “sorry bout that”, but even a horrendous increase in the use of nuclear power generation would have no noticeable effect on the “ppm quantity” of atmospheric CO2.
@ Rod Everson

…… rather than reducing the overall level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The only way humans can force a “reduction” in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities is to instigate, initiate and/or “trigger” a post haste “ending” to the current Holocene Period of Interglacial Warming so that the “cooling” of the ocean waters will start “sucking” great quantities of CO2 from out of the atmosphere.
@ Rod Everson

Whether reducing atmospheric CO2 will be a good thing or a bad thing is still, to my mind, debatable.

It is NEITHER a “good thing” or a “bad thing” for humans to be accused of doing ……. simply because at the present time, humans are incapable of causing either an increase or a decrease in atmospheric CO2.
And “the proof is in the pudding” ……. because nowhere in any CO2 Proxy Records or the historical Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 Record ….. can there be found a “human signature” that proves, without any doubt, that human activities have been and/or are directly affecting changes in ppm quantities of atmospheric CO2.
Here is 59 years (1958-2017) of Maun Loa data ….. and no human signature, to wit:
And here is a graph with the plotted ….. 1979-2013 UAH satellite global lower atmosphere temperatures & CO2 ppm data ….. and no human signature there on either, to wit:

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
June 4, 2017 10:15 am

I believe it has been demonstrated though isotopic studies that atmospheric CO2 sourced from fossil fuels is increasing as a percentage of the total. However, I also believe that this increase is beneficial to life.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
June 5, 2017 4:41 am

So, ……. you “believe” it has been demonstrated, …… HUH?
Do you also “believe” that it has been demonstrated that CO2 has been causing a warming of earth’s atmosphere during he past 130 years?
“HA”, me thinks you have been “snookered” into “believing” Ferdinand E’s ”junk-science” isotopic studies ……. wherein he claims and/or “demonstrates” a casual association between the “isotopic CO2 signature” of the atmosphere and the “isotopic CO2 signature” of the un-oxidized fossil fuels. And he doesn’t stipulate which fossil fuel. …. coal, oil or NG.
And many intelligent people accept the fact that …… “association does not equal causation”.
And worse yet, FE has no reliable or factual data on the “isotopic CO2 signature” of the CO2 that is being “outgassed” into the atmosphere as a result of microbial decomposition of dead biomass and/or the “burning” (oxidation) of both dead and live biomass as a result of forest fires, etc., etc.
And no reliable or factual data on the “isotopic CO2 signature” of the CO2 that is being “outgassed” into the atmosphere from the waters of the rivers, the lakes and the oceans that are situate on planet earth.

Reply to  Rod Everson
June 4, 2017 9:53 am

I’m much more afraid of the consequences of an atmospheric CO2 decrease from 400 ppm to 150 ppm (life on Earth becomes extinct) than a slight increase (based on historical levels). Seems to me that ~1,000 ppm would actually be a logical goal rather than a catastrophe.

Reply to  David Weir
June 5, 2017 6:10 am

This is the point that never seems to get raised. We are much closer to catastrophic consequences from low CO2 than any “unknown” impacts from the slight increase.
Why hasn’t every one of these governors who signed on to the “pledge” banned CO2 enrichment for indoor farming?
This is a conscience process of burning fuel to increase CO2. Is there any more obvious case of “man-made” CO2?
Failure to act on this demonstrates that they are either disingenuous or moronic.

Reply to  Rod Everson
June 4, 2017 1:46 pm

I can envisage a point long in the future, where low-impact and low-waste thorium nuclear is used to break down limestone to increase atmospheric CO2 to keep the planet alive.

June 4, 2017 7:04 am

According to the chart above, even if the USA cut it’s CO2 emissions to zero, worldwide rate of CO2 emissions would still increase.

Jim G1
June 4, 2017 7:20 am

I heard an great example of biased, dishonest reporting on emissions yesterday touting how Sweden or Switzerland, can’t remember which, had only one fifth the co2 emissions of the US. Note that either one has ony about 1/35th the population of the US. The left has been wrong about everything for so long, how can anyone listen to these people? Look at Europe. Disarm the populations then bring in the most dangerous possible group of immigrants. What a great plan. Yes only a small percentage are dangerous but they do not assimilate and their ideology makes them perfect for potential problems. Like the man said, here’s a bowl of m&m’s, only 5% are poison, how many do you want.

Chris Schoneveld
Reply to  Jim G1
June 4, 2017 9:01 am

Not dishonest. The one fifth is a per capita number.

Jim G1
Reply to  Chris Schoneveld
June 4, 2017 11:38 am

Not what the speaker said, but I looked it up and you are correct. Of course as a news caster he probably either got it wrong or did not realize what per capita meant.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Jim G1
June 4, 2017 9:28 am

And both of the SW countries are perfect locations for hydroelectric power, and Switzerland at least has extremely little heavy industry, so it’s not really comparable.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Jim G1
June 4, 2017 9:51 am

Like the man said, here’s a bowl of m&m’s, only 5% are poison, how many do you want.
Great question for all the “bleeding heart” liberals, Jim G1. …… I loved it.

June 4, 2017 7:22 am

LA Times :“ California led alliance of cities and states …..”
It is up to citizens of California and the warmangista cities who they wish to vote in the office and trust that their tax money will be spent wisely.
Democracy means if you are in minority however large you have to endure dictatorship of majority however small.

Curious George
Reply to  vukcevic
June 4, 2017 8:19 am

That is a sure recipe for a disaster. Governor Jerry Brown wants to remove cars from California highways by building a bullet train from Modesto to Bakersfield. Who will ride it, no one knows.

Reply to  Curious George
June 5, 2017 10:06 am

So far, the HST folks have blown through about $1B of my money doing their 0planning, and haven’t finished.
The latest plan I’ve seen has the train stopping about 10 miles north of Bakersfield – some problem with the right of way into the city. But, for just a few more 10s of billions of dollars, they’ll be able to finish the line from San Diego to Sacramento and San Francisco. Ooops, another hitch – the intent was to use a different bucket of money to electrify the line from San Jose into San Francisco, so that the commuters and the HST could both run that distance under the wires. However, some sane person in Sacramento killed that idea, so the HST folks will eventually have to pay for that electrification.
Meanwhile, the Brightline folks in Florida will start running high-speed trains between Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach this summer, all on private money. Now, not as “high-speed” as California is promising, but, then, they will actually be running.

Reply to  vukcevic
June 4, 2017 10:28 am

Again trying to accomplish this at the sub-national level.

Warren Blair
Reply to  vukcevic
June 4, 2017 2:51 pm

Who will ride the train?
Destitute people who can’t pay their bills (small business operators/young people).
Who won’t ride it:
Microsoft executive.
Google executive.
Facebook executive.
Media executives.
Wealthy liberals.
This should be fun to watch!

Reply to  Warren Blair
June 5, 2017 10:08 am

How will the unemployed and the destitute pay for their tickets?

Gary Pearse
June 4, 2017 7:49 am

Larry, you’ve come down a lot from the stance that the whole thing was a matter for debate and that we sceptics had to improve our strategy. You correctly show US decline in CO2 under (almost) free market conditions and innovation. However you still see reduction in CO2 as a virtue.
Since other nations aren’t endowed with such abundant hydrocarbon resources as the United States, are you suggesting that these poor saps MUST have government mandated emission reduction? I.e. they must continue to carpet and tuft their landscapes an seascapes with sun panels and windmills.
Larry you aren’t there yet. CO2 is greening the planet, reclaiming the deserts and, if geologic history is still considered evidence , we, through rapid expansion of phytoplankton and non organic precipitation, are initiating a new limestone generating epoch. Links to the latter phenomenon are not yet available! It’s a prediction you’ve heard here first! I suppose you could google ‘uniformatarianism’ in geology if you like.
All these dull sad people in the midst of glorious changes and abundances and a peaking of population and rising prosperity. How appropriate that it be an unlikely fellow like Trump to come and start draining, not only the DC swamp, but the global swamp as well. I hope the confused, frightened and deluded can find their way back eventually to help and enjoy this exciting real Nouveau Monde in the offing.

Curious George
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 4, 2017 8:24 am

I believe that carbon dioxide is beneficial, not harmful. Still, “fossil” fuels are a non-renewable resource, and burning them results in a low efficiency imposed by thermodynamics. We should burn them sparingly.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 8:51 am

George, “Still, “fossil” fuels are a non-renewable resource”, that is just a guess, not proven. Google “Oil is not a fossil fuel”,, or read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin.
And if coal IS a fossil fuel, Queensland, Australia, has enough coal to last the world, at current consumption rates, for the next 300 years, let alone what is available in New South Wales and Victoria.
I don’t think it is time to start worrying about running out of stuff.

Warren Blair
Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 3:22 pm

Victoria in Australia’s has one quarter (yes 1/4) of the World’s economically recoverable brown coal reserves (37 billion tonnes minimum, but likely now with new tech in excess of 1 trillion tonnes). Victoria’s easily accessible reserves could power the whole of Australia for 1000 years + and then there’d still be a million years of energy to burn from the deposit. The main seam is the largest in the World; so large the full extent can’t be determined with accuracy. Brown coal currently provides most of Victoria’s electricity; however, the green lunatics (including AGL, a brown-coal generator) are looking to shut up shop and go fully solar and wind! These people are terminally insane . . .

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Curious George
June 4, 2017 8:15 pm

Warren Blair, + 1. Victoria’s Labor Government is looney. It will do anything to save a few inner city seats from voting for the Greens.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 4, 2017 10:20 am

We are far from entering a new limestone generating epoch. If you look at the history of CO2 in the atmosphere, we are actually near the tail end of life on earth as we know it. At the natural rate of decline, in a few million years, CO2 levels will be too low to support plant life on earth, and at that point all animal life will cease to exist as well. Earth has already experienced major climactic upheavals due to atmospheric gas concentrations changing, and this will just be another one.
Early in earth’s history there was no atmospheric oxygen at all. The atmosphere was primarily CO2 and nitrogen. The earliest life forms were anaerobic, and when photosynthesis evolved, it allowed life to begin to utilize the abundant CO2 that was available. Oxygen was a waste product of photosynthesis, and photosynthesis was such an evolutionary advantage that plant life exploded all over the planet.
A billion or so years later, O2 concentrations in the atmosphere reached the point that it began to poison the anaerobic life forms, which can now only survive on earth in specialized environments where there is no oxygen. However, all that oxygen in the atmosphere allowed another evolutionary adaptation to occur, and that was animal life – something that can use the waste product of photosynthesis.
All this life, though, depends on CO2. Corals use it build their reefs, and over the eons, most of it has been removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in vast deposits of coal, limestone, marble and corals. There is so little left that during ice ages, the CO2 level in the atmosphere already drops to the point that plant life on land cannot thrive.
In burning fossil fuels, we are adding a bit of that sequestered CO2 back into the air it originally came from, but that will have an insignificant effect on the long-term destiny of earth. In the end, all earth’s CO2 will end up sequestered at the bottom of the oceans and animal life will cease first, due to starvation, followed by plant life when the CO2 finally runs out entirely.
That will take millions of years, but it is the way we are headed.

Reply to  Lee Scott
June 4, 2017 1:04 pm

Lots of animals aren’t dependent upon plants.
Some plants can survive at very low levels of CO2.
Carbon dioxide has been this low before, during the Carboniferous-Permian ice age, and its levels bounced back when the world warmed.
Complex, multicellular life probably has not just millions of years left to run, but hundreds of millions. We’re only about halfway through the Phanerozoic Eon.

Reply to  Lee Scott
June 4, 2017 1:50 pm

I’ll repeat what I said just above
I can envisage a point long in the future, where low-impact and low-waste thorium nuclear is used to break down limestone to increase atmospheric CO2 to keep the planet alive.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Lee Scott
June 4, 2017 4:05 pm

Lee: Subduction recycles carbonates and there is a large reservoir of carbononates in the upper mantle. Rifting generates carbonatites and high CO2 volcanoes. Also, probability favors a large bolide to recycle CO2 into the atmosphere again (and again). A new cycle of life will ensue. It is unlikely to include we clever creature but perhaps we have time to find other digs. We have large reservoirs of methane in the sea and in bogs, etc, that oxidizes to CO2 ; dying plants give off CO2 ; acidification may be a blessing that recycles CO2….
I believe a negative, pessimistic attitude atrophies the the scope of our thoughts. Don’t be a we will never fly or go to the moon or land on Mars or go to another solar system type of chap.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 4, 2017 5:07 pm

You might be thinking of Larry Kummer, not Larry Hamlin.

Reply to  garymount
June 4, 2017 5:20 pm

That reminds me, I have 4 months of WUWT articles i missed and should read after I took 4 months off from all news sources and the Internet after reading this Larry Kummer article :

June 4, 2017 7:52 am

Lies are all the Human Caused Globall Warmining religion has ever had, nothing new with any of this.

June 4, 2017 8:00 am

Why reduce CO2? It doesn’t harm anything, it doesn’t cause asthma, it increases plant growth. The ideal ppm for plants is 2,000 ppm, without any ill effects to humans.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
June 4, 2017 4:09 pm

Agreed. I fail to understand how people started thinking that CO2 would warm the planet and fry us all. Total delusion.

June 4, 2017 8:11 am

Maybe if the state of California wants to improve the global climate and regulate emissions of Carbon Dioxide, they might re-purpose the staff and funding of their “Air Resources Board” ( CARB) from taxing and suing furniture and flooring manufacturers who might possibly be using formaldehyde. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm
Either “Carbon” and climate change is the number one problem facing our society, or “formaldehyde” and indoor air quality afflicting poor workers and homeonwers with nasopharyngeal cancer is the priority. Either California can accept the Federal EPA guidelines on wood products or they can spend extra money writing and enforcing peculiar rules that apply to everybody in the world who might have products sold in their state. Either they can teach consumers to evaluate risks versus product prices, or they can sue (shake down) retailers such as “Lumber Liquidators” for millions of dollars in settlement and indulgences.
Or, they COULD do both, using the shakedown techniques learned from formaldehyde management to extract funds from a larger pool of industries.

Chris in Hervey Bay
June 4, 2017 8:14 am

I know and you all know, this has nothing to do with Climate Change or CO2 or Polar Bears,,, It is all about this, and you all know it..

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
June 4, 2017 9:03 am

Know what Chris?
Maybe Chris needs more effective tin foil hat.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
June 4, 2017 2:24 pm

Since Chancellor Merkel said that is what Paris Climate Treaty is about is she lying?

Francisco Saez
June 4, 2017 8:17 am

It seems like something is moving in Old Europe:
“EU climate laws undermined by Polish and Czech revolt, documents reveal”

June 4, 2017 8:31 am

You must not be aware that methane is a WORSE GHG and can’t be filtered out by trees. Plus fracking brings water pollution in the form of benzene & radioactivity in waste water supplies to name a few.
Do those not concern you? This is the problem with the stupid focus on carbon emissions- which is essentially plant food. It’s an elaborate distraction from EVERY OTHER Type of REAL POLLUTION. Pollution that can actually kill you.

Reply to  Mardog
June 4, 2017 12:51 pm

BS on you.
There is literally no evidence at all that fracking puts benzene or radioactive materials into water supplies, waste or otherwise.
And methane is broken down quickly by sunlight, water and biological activity.
You are not only an idiot.
You are a liar.,

Gunga Din
Reply to  hunter
June 4, 2017 1:41 pm

hunter, I suspect that Maddog thinks that all fracking involves this.
(Even the Russians don’t do this anymore.8-)
If he doesn’t believe that, then he must believe anything that comes out of California

Reply to  hunter
June 4, 2017 2:22 pm

Living here in western PA, where there is lots of fracking going on, the only reported ground water contamination is from idiots dumping equipment fuel(mainly diesel) from storage tanks or directly from equipment/vehicle fuel tanks. One instance of a small municipal sewage treatment plant holding reservoir being breached by heavy equipment activity too close to it was cleaned up.
The major problem we are having, water wise, is school buildings with LEAD in their plumbing. Mind you, these buildings are not old, most having been built during the last 20/30 years. And in Pine Township there has been quite the scandal because of contamination from septic systems in close proximity of the school’s wells which are used to supply drinking water testing positive for contaminates. Never mind that the 2 new school buildings have nice, new modern filtration systems which effectively remove the contaminates detected. No, the controversy is that the School Board did not send out multiple letters to parents detailing the contamination which is NOT getting to students or faculty because of the modern, new filtration system the buildings have. They just sent out one letter. Which, apparently, the majority of people did not bother to read. Butler County tested the wells, found contamination, sent out a letter and notified the local news papers, as they are required to, and the sh*t storm commenced!

June 4, 2017 8:46 am

Lends some new ideas to the phrase “Sanctuary Cities”!

richard verney
June 4, 2017 8:54 am

The fact is that the utilisation of shale is decarbonisation, and very effective decarbonisation at that. This is borne out by the significant reduction in CO2 emissions that the US has achieved since 2005. It is noteworthy that the US achieved that reduction even though it was outside the Kyoto agreement, and was much pilloried for being outside that agreement.
The further fact is that the US is in a fortunate position, not enjoyed by other developed nations, that it has copious amounts of shale, and is energy independent. Even though the US is now outside the Paris Accord, just as it was outside Kyoto, the US will without having to curtail its energy demands, continue reducing its CO2 emissions because it will carry on exploiting its shale reserves, and utilisation of shale is decarbonisation.
Other developed nations do not enjoy this luxury, and are unable to effectively decarbonise without severely curtailing their use of energy. We know as a fact that the roll out of windturbines and solar panels, are not simply unreliable (being intermittent and non despatchable), but materially they do not reduce CO2 emissions to any significant extent. This is demonstrated by Germany which has been unable to reduce significantly its Co2 emissions these past 10 to 12 years. In fact last year, its Co2 emissions increased and they are likely to further increase as their nuclear plants are taken off line and replaced by coal powered generation. See:
The MSM are being very disingenuous in their reporting of this issue. Under the Paris Accord global CO2 emissions were set to significantly increase due to the fact that China and India were committed to increasing their emissions, not curtailing those emissions. The increase in CO2 emissions by developing nations would more than wipe out any reduction in emissions by developed nations.
The MSM are also failing to point out that even though the US is now out of the Paris accord, it will reduce its CO2 emissions more effectively than any developed nation that is still signed up to the Paris Accord. The US is portrayed as a pariah, and yet due to shale, it will be the only developed nation that reduces its CO2 emissions by a significant margin. The left do not like shale, so there is no prospect of the MSM honestly reporting this matter and extolling the benefits of shale.

Bill Illis
June 4, 2017 9:25 am

Global CO2 emissions have flatlined for three straight years now (in Carbon in this chart). The US and China provided most of the decline to make up a flat trend for global emissions.comment image

Reply to  Bill Illis
June 4, 2017 10:07 am

From whence does this chart originate?
My understanding has been that China has been building coal fired power plants left right and center, they’ve invested heavily in coal mining in several countries in the world to secure coal supplies, and combustion engine use is certainly rising, not falling. So I am curious as to how China’s emissions could have dropped?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 4, 2017 10:38 am

That’s averaged out. Real economic growth doesn’t exist in Europe or north America, and that’s 50% of the global economy. It’s same reason you have negative interest rates in Europe, and near negative interest rates in North America. It’s same reason you have the pension plans that are in trouble, and the same reason governments are going deeper and deeper in debt. It’s the same reason you an over supply of oil. It’s all tied together.

Roger Knights
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 4, 2017 10:59 am

Some of China’s “new” coal plants are just cleaner / more efficient replacements for sooty old plants near the end of their lifetimes. Also, China may not be reporting the CO2 emissions from its coal-to-city-gas plants to the west of Beijing.

June 4, 2017 9:43 am

Does California really want to join the community of “third” world poor countries???

Curious George
June 4, 2017 9:47 am

Deception for sure. The San Franciso Chronicle illustrates it with an article http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Clean-energy-too-big-to-be-shut-down-by-Trump-11194036.php?t=7b81ffbee0, which compares unfavorably California per capita emissions with those of China and India. Let’s try to be more like North Korea!

J Mac
June 4, 2017 9:51 am

Barack Obama signed the Paris Climate Accord
Which the United States could ill afford!
Our new President Donald J. Trump
Threw the Climate Accord in the dump,
While socialists ’round the world squealed like they’d been gored!

June 4, 2017 10:19 am

Unfortunately the “progressives” have changed the terminology. They have changed a beneficial trace gas into a pollutant by constant propaganda techniques and well placed bureaucrats in scientific organizations.
The only real carbon pollution occurring is from particulates that spew from outdated equipment.
Anyone know if the new power plants that are being built in China and India have modern scrubbers?
Have they improved their home heating and cooking equipment?

Reply to  Brad-DXT
June 4, 2017 10:24 am

Does Mohammed eat pork and wash it down with a beer?

Reply to  ShrNfr
June 4, 2017 11:03 am

Only in private.

Curious George
Reply to  Brad-DXT
June 4, 2017 3:07 pm

This approach has been shown to work, repeatedly. See a successful redefinition of “marriage” and “free speech”. A “pollutant” is no surprise, considering that progressives are not a carbon-based life form.

June 4, 2017 10:23 am

Of course, then there is the stupidity of asserting that CO2 effects the climate in any significant way. Where is the study that rejects the null hypothesis that: “Natural Causes Caused Almost All The Increase In Temperature Observed In The 20th Century” with a reasonable degree of significance. Never saw it, and probably never will. That null hypothesis is probably the correct hypothesis for the 20th century. The Warmistas are like the folks blaming the Jews for poisoning the wells during the plague years in the 1300s. That was not real either.

June 4, 2017 10:59 am

200 people meet at a restaurant for dinner. 199 of them expect the richest guy to pay for dinner, He has in the past.
This time though the richest guy refuses to pay.
The other 199 start screaming “he’s destroying the restaurant”.

Reply to  RobRoy
June 4, 2017 1:54 pm


June 4, 2017 11:06 am

If it had not been for “deniers” challenging the “consensus” doctors and surgeons would still be going patient to patient with dirty hands and clothes.

June 4, 2017 11:08 am

Start at 1.50-

William Astley
June 4, 2017 11:23 am

In reply to:

The emissions reduction leadership role for California championed by the L A Times is touted despite the fact that our state doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how it can achieve its SB 32 emissions goals nor does it have any idea of how many tens of billions it will cost nor care at all about how the state will end up dictating how all Californians must live their lives.

There must be some kind of magical spell that stops/blocks basic engineering calculations/knowledge in California.
It is not possible to reduce CO2 emissions by 40% using wind and solar, for basic engineering reasons.
There is a maximum limit as to how much variable wind and solar energy an electrical grid can handle. The maximum is around 10% average or 50% peak when both wind and solar are at their actual nameplate maximum.
The engineering reason for the cap of 50% is due to the fact that nuclear power plants (which are zero emission) and combined cycle natural gas power plants (that are 20% more efficient than single cycle natural gas power plants but require 10 hours to start-up) cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on.
Typical electrical grids have 50% base electrical grid load, allocated to high efficient/low cost low carbon emission power plants (natural gas and nuclear).
A wind farm power output can and does vary as much as 30% in an hour, which is not surprising as the power output of a wind turbine is at the third power of wind speed.
The actual CO2 savings (due to the wind and solar farm) is less than 10% as the forced turn-off of single cycle natural gas power plants and forced wheeling of ‘green’ power through the grid increase energy losses by about 3%. In addition, the CO2 savings do not include the CO2 input for the steel, cement, and so on, that is required to construct the green scams.
A significant portion of the EU CO2 savings is due to the fact that they have now purchase energy intensive materials from the US and manufactured goods from China.

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.


Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.

June 4, 2017 12:20 pm

Old, but still relevant.

June 4, 2017 12:24 pm

“… state governments lead by California (OMG!!) must take command of future U.S. emissions performance.”
The Progressives will actually attempt to use a “rule by judiciary” approach to government. The make up of the Supreme Court is critical in order to overturn a bunch of Liberal Totalitarian district courts.

June 4, 2017 12:47 pm

What is needed, is to get the conservative/skeptic views of scientists and economists and engineers, politicians, and others, disseminated and discussed in the MSM. Discussing this all amongst ourselves forever won’t change anything. All of this has to be put out into the MSM to inform the public about other views, and be debated and discussed. This should be the main goal for conservatives and skeptics.

June 4, 2017 12:52 pm

Old McDonald had a farm
And on that farm he had a pig
With an Oink Oink here and an Oink Oink there

June 4, 2017 12:56 pm

It is interesting that these cities support the globalist agenda regarding climate change, but feel no hesitation about disregarding Federal immigration law.

Crispin in Waterloo
June 4, 2017 12:57 pm

Author: You chart 1 does not include any indication of how much the absorption of CO2 by the biosphere has expanded during the same time interval.
There are the expanding Easter Forests, which currently absorb a reported 80% of all US-human emissions of CO2, and the general increase in biosphere productivity. It would not surprise me at all to find that the net emissions of the USA are less than 20% of what is claimed.
The argument given by Green pressure groups against including the Easter Forest expansion/sequestration is that it used to be there to it cannot be counted as it grows back. That is a non-systematic view. The whole system includes perturbations and a rational analysis of what is happening. The fossil fuel base is limited, so is the capacity for the forest to grow back. They are, even now, approximately in balance. When the forest finishes growing we will also have experienced peak coal and probably peak energy (barring a new high density technology).
The expansion of the Western forests relative to 100 years ago is also happening. Thus if the total biomass increase in the US were compared with the total emissions and the trend in CO2 emissions combined with the trend in CO2 binding, the result is a chart very different from the one at the top of the article.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
June 4, 2017 3:17 pm

“It would not surprise me at all to find that the net emissions of the USA are less than 20% of what is claimed.”
I’ve read that the U.S. is a net sink for CO2. (If anyone has a citation to back me up, please post it!)

Rick C PE
June 4, 2017 1:09 pm

Year 2050:
The global population is 10.5 billion.
The average global temperature is 16.5 C.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is 645 ppm.
The breakthrough by scientists in fusion energy technology in 2038 resulted in the construction of thousands of gigawatt scale power stations which now provide of 95% of the world’s electrical energy. Electric power has become so inexpensive that it is no longer metered. Consumers and commercial enterprises simply pay a modest monthly fee scaled to their usage classification. The average single family home now pays $10/mo. for all the electricity they need. Nearly every home on the planet now has cheap reliable electrical service. Poverty has been almost completely eliminated and worldwide health has improved as everyone knows. Globally, life expectancy is now nearly double what it was just 5 decades ago.
Transportation technology has also progressed with the development of much more efficient batteries. Nearly all vehicles are now fully electric. A fully charged standardized battery provides a 300+ mile driving range even when running heating or A/C. Every garage and parking spot has a charging hook- up. Service stations have been converted to provide battery swap- outs. You can now pull into a service station and for about $5 a robot will remove your depleted battery and install a fully charged one in less than 3 minutes. Only aircraft still rely on liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Climatologists have determined that that CO2 levels peaked 15 years ago and are now declining. Computer models which have been tested and validated against high precision measurements have raised a serious alarm. The models show that by 2100 CO2 levels will drop to less than half of their current levels. This drop will be catastrophic for the planet and human life as we know it. The primary effect will be a huge 40% decline in agricultural productivity by the year 2100. Climate scientist Michael Mann, Jr. Notes that CO2 is the fundamental building block of all life. “CO2 is the food that feeds the food we eat”, says Mann Jr. “If we allow the concentration to fall to such low levels, the plants that are the base of our food chain will be starved. This will rapidly lead to mass starvation of animals that eat plants and that includes us.”
In addition, the decline in CO2, which results from sequestration mainly through the natural processes of ocean biome converting CO2 to biomass and calcium carbonate that ultimately is buried in the ocean depths is unstoppable. Added to the massive amounts of CO2 being tied up in the increase in terrestrial biomass as seen in the shrinking of deserts (the Sahara desert is now less than 40% of its size just 50 years ago) and it is clear that CO2 decline will continue for decades to come.
Scientists lay the blame for this situation squarely at the feet of the fusion energy revolution. “We used to add CO2 to the atmosphere at a substantial rate. At one time our predecessors thought this was bad and would cause huge problems by creating substantial global warming” says Dr. J. Hansen III. “Of course, we now know the computer models they used greatly overestimated the so-called greenhouse effect. As a result we can see that things they worried about like sea level rise and arctic ice melting away didn’t happen. But I don’t think many people back then even considered the possibility that complete ‘decarbonization’ would have the drastic negative consequences we now know are coming.”
So what can we do? Our children’s and grandchildren’s future is at stake. Fortunately there is something we can do. There are still enormous stocks of carbon buried around the globe in the form of coal and oil. We can burn these carbon stocks on a large scale to produce enough CO2 to stabilize the atmospheric concentrations somewhere between 450 and 600 ppm. In order to make this process feasible it is proposed that 1/3 of the existing fusion plants be shut down and replaced with coal/oil fired plants. This will, of course, result in electricity prices sky-rocketing. Economists estimate that the average home owner will need to pay 3-5 times what they now pay. It may even be necessary to meter electrical usage to assure fairness. But it must be done. Think of the children!

Reply to  Rick C PE
June 5, 2017 4:25 am


Reply to  Rick C PE
June 5, 2017 4:44 pm

Here’s a slightly different version, from Murray Leinster, in his 1928 short story, “The Mad Planet.”
“…the change that had begun in the latter half of the twentieth century.
At about that time, civilization had been high, and apparently secure. Mankind had reached a permanent agreement among itself, and all men had equal opportunities to education and leisure. Machinery did most of the labor of the world, and men were only required to supervise its operation. All men were well-fed, all men were well-educated, and it seemed that until the end of time the earth would be the abode of a community of comfortable human beings, pursuing their studies and diversions, their illusions and their truths. Peace, quietness, privacy, freedom were universal.
Then, just when men were congratulating themselves that the Golden Age had come again, it was observed that the planet seemed ill at ease. Fissures opened slowly in the crust, and carbonic acid gas—the carbon dioxide of chemists—began to pour out into the atmosphere. That gas had long been known to be present in the air, and was considered necessary to plant life. Most of the plants of the world took the gas and absorbed its carbon into themselves, releasing the oxygen for use again.
Scientists had calculated that a great deal of the earth’s increased fertility was due to the larger quantities of carbon dioxide released by the activities of man in burning his coal and petroleum. Because of those views, for some years no great alarm was caused by the continuous exhalation from the world’s interior.
Constantly, however, the volume increased. New fissures constantly opened, each one adding a new source of carbon dioxide, and each one pouring into the already laden atmosphere more of the gas—beneficent in small quantities, but as the world learned, deadly in large ones.
The percentage of the heavy, vapor-like gas increased. The whole body of the air became heavier through its admixture. It absorbed more moisture and became more humid. Rainfall increased. Climates grew warmer. Vegetation became more luxuriant—but the air gradually became less exhilarating.
Soon the health of mankind began to be affected. Accustomed through long ages to breathe air rich in oxygen and poor in carbon dioxide, men suffered. Only those who lived on high plateaus or on tall mountaintops remained unaffected. The plants of the earth, though nourished and increasing in size beyond those ever seen before, were unable to dispose of the continually increasing flood of carbon dioxide.
* * * *
By the middle of the twenty-first century it was generally recognized that a new carboniferous period was about to take place, when the earth’s atmosphere would be thick and humid, unbreathable by man, when giant grasses and ferns would form the only vegetation.
When the twenty-first century drew to a close the whole human race began to revert to conditions closely approximating savagery. The low-lands were unbearable. Thick jungles of rank growth covered the ground. The air was depressing and enervating. Men could live there, but it was a sickly, fever-ridden existence. The whole population of the earth desired the high lands and as the low country became more unbearable, men forgot their two centuries of peace.
They fought destructively, each for a bit of land where he might live and breathe. Then men began to die, men who had persisted in remaining near sea-level. They could not live in the poisonous air. The danger zone crept up as the earth-fissures tirelessly poured out their steady streams of foul gas. Soon men could not live within five hundred feet of sea level. The low-lands went uncultivated, and became jungles of a thickness comparable only to those of the first carboniferous period.
Then men died of sheer inanition at a thousand feet. The plateaus and mountaintops were crowded with folk struggling for a foothold and food beyond the invisible menace that crept up, and up—
These things did not take place in one year, or in ten. Not in one generation, but in several. Between the time when the chemists of the International Geophysical Institute announced that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the air had increased from .04 per cent to .1 per cent and the time when at sea-level six per cent of the atmosphere was the deadly gas, more than two hundred years intervened.
Coming gradually, as it did, the poisonous effects of the deadly stuff increased with insidious slowness. First the lassitude, then the heaviness of brain, then the weakness of body. Mankind ceased to grow in numbers. After a long period, the race had fallen to a fraction of its former size. There was room in plenty on the mountaintops—but the danger-level continued to creep up. There was but one solution. The human body would have to inure itself to the poison, or it was doomed to extinction. It finally developed a toleration for the gas that had wiped out race after race, but at a terrible cost…”
Leinster, Murray. The Murray Leinster Megapack (Kindle Locations 2178-2186). Ingram Distribution. Kindle Edition.

June 4, 2017 1:36 pm

Congress should prohibit States from regulating CO2, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, fracking, energy production and so forth beyond Federal Regulations to save the American economy from the looney left politicians. Congress should further constrain States by requiring Quarterly and yearly public audits under GATT rules and require full funding of future obligations such as public pensions.

June 4, 2017 1:43 pm

This post makes no sense. Given that the Paris agreement is nonbinding (indeed Trump called it
the “non-binding Paris accord” and that any CO2 reductions are voluntary and up to each individual
country then the fact that US emissions are currently decreasing is no reason to leave it. In fact as
the author has stated the USA is actually well on tract to meet its CO2 reduction targets through use of natural gas rather than coal.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Germinio
June 4, 2017 3:28 pm

The reason to leave the Accord is that if it is not left, warmist activists will sue to force that EPA to comply with it. This has been reported to be Trump’s advisors’ major rationale.

Reply to  Roger Knights
June 4, 2017 4:08 pm

Again a non-sensical reason. The Paris Accord is a non-binding voluntary agreement in which each nation decides independently what CO2 reductions it will make. In otherwise Trump could revise the USA’s reductions as he sees fit and that would still fulfil the terms of the Paris Accord. Hence no-one can sue the EPA to comply with it.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
June 4, 2017 9:40 pm

“Trump could revise the USA’s reductions as he sees fit and that would still fulfil the terms of the Paris Accord. ”
Not so. Once a country has stated the amount of reduction it will make, it is not allowed to revise that amount downward, only upward. (See couple of the comments in the latest thread in the Climate Etc. site for my source on this. It’s at https://judithcurry.com/2017/06/04/paris-accord-qtiips/ ) Therefore the Trump administration would be vulnerable to a lawsuit if it didn’t fulfill the pledge Obama made.
At the end of its commitment period (2030?) a country can make another commitment.

Reply to  Germinio
June 4, 2017 5:25 pm

If there’s no point in leaving it because it requires nothing, there is also no point in staying with it.

Bill J
June 4, 2017 1:44 pm

The big problem for the rest of the world with the US pulling out of the Paris Accord isn’t emissions it’s the $100 Billion we won’t be paying. Other countries won’t be stepping in to cover it so the smaller countries that signed on to the gravy train are going to be disappointed.

Reply to  Bill J
June 4, 2017 1:57 pm

As we called it when I was across the water in US Army, the infinite gravy train with biscuit wheels. Lots of people line the tracks with their buckets held out to get them some.

Reply to  Bill J
June 4, 2017 2:31 pm

what $100 billion is that? The USA has no commitments for $100 billion whatsoever. The only pledge was
to the green climate fund for $3 billion (which is about $3 per person over 3 years). The green climate fund
is completely seperate from the Paris Accord and should not be conflated with it. The green climate fund does have a target of raising $100 billion but has no power to force anyone to pay into it. It is again completely voluntary. There has never been any suggestion that the USA would pay $100 billion into it.

June 4, 2017 1:49 pm

If was good to see Scott Pruitt didn’t get rolled by Chris Wallace today as he was in April. Overall better prepared but still on the economics/anti UN sovereignty only debate approach but that’s in line with the current administration line;
He did drop the Global Warming Policy Institute’s name in the interview which was encouraging. Starting to work the edges of junk science/consensus talking points. https://www.thegwpf.org/
The MSM focus has been on old DJT tweets about “hoax” and trying to unleash the assumed AGW premise and the mish-mash of “climate change” meaning which is basic leftist coded talk at this point. The admin people have basically ducked this confrontation. The weakest link they found was Nikki Haley and you have to wonder why she should would be a troll weak point;
She could and should have punted to Pruitt and she got near a dangerous line. Of course where is the WH spokesperson to point out the entire idiocy of the term “climate change” in the debate all together? First rule should be to restore the originally fraud term Americans got sick of….”global warming” and all the failed claims in the legacy file made a PowerPoint presentation in every media sit-down or every-time the word “hoax” is attributed to DJT. Every failed prediction of Manhattan underwater should be in the slide show. Every failed model as well.
It’s already overdue that the WH needs science skeptics on the front as spokespeople and the AGW propaganda can’t be defeated on an economics only agenda. Next stop might be the endangerment finding and that will require the climate war and skeptical science dissent. Pruitt clearly has his hands tied but overall the Paris exit is a win. The leftist backlash has been predictably inane and I think the base public ranges from not caring at all to supporting the exit. Exit politics could have been a much better and a bigger success but still winning.

June 4, 2017 2:14 pm

“These seemingly panic driven articles by the MSM are completely devoid of any supporting emissions data and analysis for the U.S. and world for both present and future time periods.”
I watched some video of various MSM talking heads interviewing spokespeople for the Trump admin. and the like, and they constantly seemed to be trying to turn the discussion toward “the science” as they refer to it, as though they simply weren’t prepared for/with much else.
I highly suspect there was a strong assumption that if the PA was ditched, skepticism about the official CAGW (catastrophic anthropocentric (human caused) global warming) position, was going to be a major reason cited. When it wasn’t, and they had no particular excuse to drag out the usual suspects, so to speak ; ) they were caught flat footed . .. almost desperately trying to get someone to give them an excuse to bring out the climate clowns . . so to speak ; )
That was an intentional “head-fake” (as it’s called in basketball) I’d bet a pretty penny.

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 4, 2017 2:25 pm

(Oops, that should say anthopogenic . . but it’s the same thing . . )

Roger Knights
Reply to  JohnKnight
June 4, 2017 3:23 pm

I watched some video of various MSM talking heads interviewing spokespeople for the Trump admin. and the like, and they constantly seemed to be trying to turn the discussion toward “the science” as they refer to it

Hopefully this will pave the way for their hosting a series of televised or radio braodcast debates on CAGW theory and weak points.

Reply to  JohnKnight
June 4, 2017 4:00 pm

Not going after the junk science hard de facto validates it given the general level of ignorance and indoctrination. I get the WH tactic short term but it has to evolve.

June 4, 2017 2:26 pm

CO2 emission is the hypothesis, not the evidence. The former is politics, not science.

Reply to  nn
June 4, 2017 4:14 pm

A failed hypothesis at that, second CO2 and no warming with a temp stat inside its margin of error.
The politics are stale and past peak as well. Even allied MSM players are sick of it watching the samples since the exit. They go through the climate cut and paste but their emotions are on other silly talking points about “Russians” for example.
I wish DJT went harder at the Greenshirts but focusing on UN Anti-Americanism and money scored easy points as well.

Reply to  cwon14
June 4, 2017 4:16 pm

“Record CO2 “

June 4, 2017 2:43 pm

I never thought the Paris agreement was that exiting.

Curious George
Reply to  Hans Erren
June 4, 2017 3:42 pm

You’ve made my day.

Robert Daniels
June 4, 2017 3:38 pm

So sadly misinformed you are, obviously pushing someone’s agenda, rather than understanding the reality most of the world gets.
BTW, most of the progress in the US to achieve GHG reductions is due to the exact policy direction Trump wants to get rid of.
I am sure that you can do better.

Reply to  Robert Daniels
June 4, 2017 4:01 pm

Talk is cheap, Robert . . and around here you need to bring some evidence and logic, or folks just don’t care what the talk-talk says.
“BTW, most of the progress in the US to achieve GHG reductions is due to the exact policy direction Trump wants to get rid of.”
What policy are you referring to? And how did it do what you claim?

Reply to  Robert Daniels
June 4, 2017 4:07 pm

Trouble for you Robert there is no hard science relationship between CO2 and weather that you mistakenly call “climate”.
It can’t be weather when events go one way against your argument and climate when it suits your propaganda.
Even the semi disinterested public has caught on. Gore looked like an idiot today with an in-the-climate-fraud-tank MSM player, Chris Wallace. Soft ball tosses and all.

Reply to  Robert Daniels
June 4, 2017 4:30 pm

The US is the only major industrial power to have achieved the reductions called for by Kyoto, wisely without ever ratifying that preposterous pact. We did it by using more natural gas, which we did for good economic reasons.
There is no reality which you imagine. The reality is that more CO2 is good for the planet.

Reply to  Gabro
June 5, 2017 10:19 pm

“The US is the only major industrial power to have achieved the reductions called for by Kyoto,”
Not true, the EU is on track to meet their targets.http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_On_track_factsheet.pdf

Patrick MJD
June 4, 2017 5:16 pm

I am very surprised that an article like this was published in the Australia alarmist media.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 4, 2017 5:17 pm

PRESS Note by Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy [Scientist]
Subject: Impact of US Withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement???
The following is my observation in Environment/Climate Change/The Guardian:
Instead of blaming Trump’s decision on withdrawing from Paris Agreement, nations and people why not create an atmosphere in their respective countries and places energy efficient methods with moderate life styles? This is the right solution, if carbon dioxide is really causing global warming as predicted by modelers and IPCC. Take for example, Indian Government is weakening environmental norms even along the coast line that severely impact on sea level and inundation of fertile coastal zones to benefit ruling clan forgetting the people or life forms. Let the Guardian take up this task to help the nations and people, hear people means commoners. Green Fund helps politicians amass wealth only.
Paris Climate Agreement:
The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 was held in Paris, from Nov. 30 to Dec. 12.
Before the Paris Climate Meet, several prominent leaders put forth agendas on environment to save people from health hazards. To counter this vested groups lobbied to see the “environmental issues” will not find a place in the Paris Climate Agreement. They were successful on this.
Now the media and national leaders are using the word “Environment [Paryavaranam]” invariably as they are shy of using global warming. Paris Agreement is on climate but not on environment. This is in fact not a new issue even in 70s to thwart the environmental movement; the vested groups pressurized UN to sabotage this movement. They were successful; and as a result born the “global warming” but with the time, people are shy of using the word global warming and instead using climate change, a vast subject.
The objective of the 2015 conference is to achieve, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, to binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. However, the new Paris Agreement of 12th December 2015 has no legally bounding clause. Instead the Agreement introduces model of voluntary “national determined contributions” by governments in terms of emissions and finances. It included a clause on limiting global temperature rise over the pre-industrial levels as “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 oC and pursue efforts temperature increase to 1.5 oC, but this is not associated with the anthropogenic greenhouse gases alone but a combination of factors which are not addressed in the agreement but mostly local and regional in nature. The document included several “jargons” impact of climate change and pollution aspects [environmental aspects], but dealt only on global warming and emission control. For example, Indian agriculture is primarily related to natural variability in rainfall [droughts & floods] over different parts of India under variable climate system and general circulation patterns; and heat and cold waves form part of Western Disturbances. In fact we are producing food in excess and wasting. This is around 30% for the globe and 40-50% for India. We are attributing local poor governance problems to climate.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is part of nature. We breathe oxygen and release carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere; trees breathe carbon dioxide and release oxygen; carbon dioxide is helping the crop production.
With the non-linear population growth and destruction of forests more carbon dioxide is entering in to the atmosphere with the time. We rarely account these aspects.
Though we see reports media editorials as well politicians including Prime Minister of India, using the word environment, wherein climate change is not environment and global warming is not climate change. The present Indian government is pursuing the environmental destructive mode. The government in 70s and 80s brought out environmental acts to protect the nature but the present government is destroying them to serve vested interests. That means we give least importance to environmental issues that are causing health hazards and thus affecting 130 crore population. But we are more worried on Trump withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement.
Impact of Trump
According to IPCC, Global warming started from 1951. Global warming is linked to Carbon Dioxide emissions through sensitivity factor to energy factor. According to 2014 data global Carbon Dioxide Emissions and contribution to Green Fund are:
Country % share of Contribution to
CO2 Emissions Green Fund [$]
China 30% Nil
USA 15% 3 billion
India 07% Nil
Japan 04% 1.5 billion
India got green fund for FPO45 – Groundwater Recharging and Solar mico-irrigation to ensure food security and Enhance Resilience in vulnerable Tribal Areas of Odessa in India — $ 166.3 million total project investment.
By US withdrawal from “Paris Climate Agreement”, modelers predicted that global warming will rise by 2100 [that is in 83 years] (a) according to one group it is 0.3 oC and (b) according to another group it is 0.1 to 0.2 oC. That is, it may raise anywhere between 0.1 to 0.3 oC. That means the sensitivity factor is highly variable with modelers to modelers [IPCC report clearly demonstrated this variability with time (Reduced) and with the modeler groups]. That means, if all countries without control releases Carbon Dioxide in to atmosphere then according to these estimates, the temperature may raise by 0.67 to 2.00 oC, respectively for 0.1oC and to 0.3 oC. Here we must not forget the fact that the energy factor is limited and not unlimited – sensitivity factor links energy with carbon dioxide. In nature, they follow a classic sigmoid model. That is with the increasing carbon dioxide, the rise in temperature comes down to a flat pattern. Thus the estimates will be less than 0.67 to 2.00 oC.
Definition of Climate Change
According to the IPCC Third Assessment Report “Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period [typically decades or longer]. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcing or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use”. UNFCCC in its Article 1, defines “climate Change” as:”a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. From these definitions, it is clear that climate change can occur naturally or from man-made causes. Global warming is one component of man-made causes and that too starting from 1951 onwards.
In 1966 World Meteorological Organization brought out a manual on “Climate Change” prepared by eminent meteorologists from different country’s meteorological departments. (late) Shri K. N. Rao from IMD was a co-author [with whom I was associated in early 70s and initiated work on natural variability part (as part of this I found 52 year cycle in the onset dates of Monsoon over Kerala as part of responding to a quarry in parliament on the onset date of Delhi) and another colleague of mine started work on land use change aspects as by that time global warming was not an important issue].
Indian temperature showed a raise of about 0.5 oC since 1871 in which minimum temperature raise was nearly double to the maximum temperature suggesting the impact of urbanization which is nothing to do with carbon dioxide. However, the main weakness in this data is that though rural areas present more than double to the urban areas, the met network present very sparse over rural areas and dense in urban areas. This bias is negated by the satellite data, which present less than 50% of ground based estimate of global temperature anomaly [adjusted]. Thus, so far the global warming component of temperature anomaly raise is less than around 0.15 oC. Yet people say and write the happening catastrophic impacts on nature. Somebody writes already raised by 4 oC and by 2100 it may reach 8 oC. Let these people atleast look at the temperature anomaly data published by several pro-warming groups instead of fooling people with model simulation estimates.
So-called Impacts
The Antarctic [around 90% of the ice is located here] is in some ways the precise opposite of the Arctic [less than 10% of the ice is located here]. Both follow natural variability but in opposite pattern – present phase is building ice in the former and loosing the ice in the later with clear-cut seasonal peaks [summer & winter]. Same is the case with the ocean temperatures. These influence sea level raise and fall. If we look at San Francisco Airport, which is in sea water, so far there is no change in sea level. So also the case with the Hong Kong Airport located in the sea. Hong Kong presents a clear-cut urban-heat-island effect.
In 2014 a study of 2181 Himalayan glaciers from 2000-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding [this was informed to parliament in December 2015 after returning from Paris meet]. Gangotri is now recovering from the impact of fault zone.
The present day urban disasters are caused by humans to meet their greed with government machineries apathy; but they are attributed to global warming, easy pray that can’t defend it.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
Fellow, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Academy of Sciences
Plot No. 277, Jubilee Hills-III, Road No. 78
Near Padmalaya Studio
Hyderabad – 500 096
Telangana State, India

steve mcdonald
June 4, 2017 6:16 pm

This is the last chance for a 1 dictatorship world. Once the fraud and it’s purpose is exposed the mega-rich, the mega-powerful and the narsassistic Hollywood self-proclaimed celebrities will be double checked meticulously by the masses they secretly despise.

June 4, 2017 6:31 pm

Based on paleoclimate data and upon modeling results one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is cuased by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warming causes more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water but there is no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to any warming. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero.
One researcher has pointed out the the original radiametric calculations of the possible warming effects of CO2, ignoring feedbacks, is too great by more than a fact of 20 because those making those original calculations forgot to include that fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, we have a climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C.
To make the warming effect of CO2 seem significant the AGW conjecture adds the idea that H2O acts as a positive feedback because warmer air and water causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is a greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture likes to assume a gain factor of 3 caused by H2O feedback but they are really not sure. That is why in their first and last report, the IPCC published the exact same range in their guess as what the climate sensivity of CO2 really is. What they completely ignore is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a msjor coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth;s surface which is mostly water to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved via H2O then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. Considering that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than dry lapse rate, more H2O in the atmosphere has a cooling and not a warming effect. So instead of amplifying CO2 warming by a factor of 3, H2O retards CO2 warming by a factor of 3. Hence the climate sensivity of CO2 is less than .02 degrees C.
After more than two decades of study the IPCC has been unable to reduce their range of gueeses as to the climate sensivity of CO2, one iota. This would be consistant with the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is two small a number to detect. The IPCC will never admitt such for fear of losing their funding..
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of LWIR absorbing greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass lowers cooling by convection. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm but rather it is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on earth. There is no radiant greenhouse provided for by the LWIR absorption properties of some trace gases that keeps the surface of the Earth 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise due to atmospheric warming. Derived from first principals the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect which is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the depth of the atmosphere and gravity keeps the surface of the Earth 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. 33 degrees C is what has been calculates and 33 degrees C is what has been measured so there is no room left for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in thge solar system with a thick atmosphere. Without the radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW cnjedture is just science fiction.
So based on science. changing the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will have no effect on climate. There may be many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

June 4, 2017 7:22 pm

It is very interesting to look at Der Spiegel’s report on President Trump’s Paris exit.- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html
The president’s speech looked at the numbers and showed that the Paris agreement was ineffective at reducing emissions and unfair on the USA.
Der Spiegel opens with the title- “Donald Trump’s Triumph of Stupidity” and goes on to say “His speech was packed with make-believe numbers from controversial or disproven studies. It was hypocritical and dishonest. In Trump’s mind, the climate agreement is an instrument allowing other countries to enrich themselves at the expense of the United States”.
Their conclusion is that- “ It’s America against the rest of the world, along with Syria and Nicaragua, the only other countries that haven’t signed the Paris deal.”
I find it amazing that after so many billions have been spent on researching Climate Change there is still a chasm between opposing viewpoints as to what is fact.

Curious George
Reply to  LittleOil
June 4, 2017 7:47 pm

A nice example of a lemming mentality.

Reply to  Curious George
June 5, 2017 5:15 pm

Interestingly, if you take the actual German headline from Der Spiegel, “Triumph der Dummheit,” it seems perilously close to the title of Ms. Riefenstahl’s magnum opus, “Trumph des Willen.”
Not exact, but perilously close.

Reply to  Curious George
June 5, 2017 5:17 pm

DAMMIT! Funny as it might look, I did not mean to misspell “Triumph des Willen.”

June 4, 2017 9:27 pm

So President Trump refers to “man made ” global warming as a hoax and the media get all
freaked out yet Al Gore the pathological global warming doomsayer claims “the planet has a fever ”
and not a peep . Hmm…. A fever really ?
The President was far to kind . A hoax is a malicious deception intended to mislead . Where I come from
some would simply conclude Al Gore’s statement is best described as complete Bull Shit .
No…. the earth doesn’t have a fever but everyone knows climate changes and we are the lucky winners
to be riding a warming trend . That may frighten people that think a cooling planet is best for plants ,trees
and critters but there is no stamped to move to Antarctica and those Hollywood actor Malibu beach front
properties are in hot demand . So the market has spoken .
Mr .Trump is correct it’s a hoax designed to liberate tax payer money for a list of benefactors . Wire fraud just seems a little more fitting description when attempting to fleece people through deception and misinformation .

John Leggett
June 5, 2017 6:13 am

The problem I have with your post is that it assumes a rise in CCO2 is bad. Everything I read about a rise in CO2 is that it is beneficial. Why anyone would want to reduce the amount of CO2 is beyond me. It is a plant fertilizer and makes plants more resistant to drought . Plant growth has increased around 15% since 1950. Anthropogenic global warming even if it is real mostly increases nighttime low temperatures during the winter not a bad thing. Thereby increasing the amount of arable land. There is a real problem with sea-level rise but based on the past interglacials it is going to happen anyway.

Frank DeMaris
June 5, 2017 6:39 am

From California’s perspective, the most important part of the now-defunct Clean Power Plan to implement the Paris Treaty is that it would have levelled the playing field between California and the rest of the country by crippling the energy systems of the other 40 or so states that care. If California’s energy economy is hamstrung, but Nevada and Arizona (just to mention the immediate neighbors) aren’t constrained by the CPP, then it’s easy to see where the businesses and jobs will go.

Reply to  Frank DeMaris
June 6, 2017 5:19 am

Time for California’s neighbors to stop selling them electricity, or at the very least jack the price up so high the people in Cali rebel against their masters and rebuild their electric generation capacity.

Reply to  Frank DeMaris
June 7, 2017 9:49 am

Just read an article in LA Times, says Cali has an “electricity glut” and there is no need to build new gas fired generation plants. Got into the comments and every one of them was to the tune of”Oh, really, too much electricity, then why are our bills so high? And why are our utility companies buying electricity from other states?” and so on and so forth. These greentards have talking out both sides of their mouths down to a fine art!

June 5, 2017 6:53 pm

Shameful Misdirection of Priorities: 75% of Black California Boys don’t meet State Reading Standards While California Focuses on Climate Change

Reply to  co2islife
June 6, 2017 5:20 am

Can’t have young people knowing how to read, write and do arithmetic. Makes them hard to control.

Reply to  2hotel9
June 6, 2017 8:26 am

Ufortunately, I think there is a lot of truth to your comment.

Reply to  co2islife
June 7, 2017 9:38 am

My personal observations match with what commieBob stated in his last comment. I watched as primary school education was altered beyond any semblance of effective teaching in the early 1970s. Looking at it in the years after I was out of school the only conclusion that makes any sense is it was done on purpose. I entered elementary school in the late ’60s, we were taught to memorize mathematical tables(adding,subtracting,multiplying and division). Then around 1971-72 we were told to stop doing that, it was the “wrong” way to learn. My son started school in 2000 and what he brought home as “math” was gibberish. Had my mom mail me a bunch of the early level math materials she had held onto and used that to teach Boy math. We got crap from school here, actual teacher/parent meetings at which we were told we are not “allowed” to do that, we did it anyway. Some teachers and admins retaliated against him for it, we involved a lawyer and threatened to take them to court before they finally backed off. And we were not alone, during this fiasco we got to know a bunch of other parents having the same problems with school admin and teachers in multiple school districts. When he hit 8th grade we had enough, pulled him out and enrolled in PACyber, problems vanished.
Still have to deal with the products of screwed up public education, though. People who can’t do basic math, read simple instructions, read a tape measure or understand verbal instructions. Know several people who own/operate small businesses, restaurant/bar, grocery store/gas station, pizza and ice cream joints and they are all in the same boat, have to teach new employees all the basics they should be learning in school. And god forbid you have a non-computer cash register.
OK, enough with the rant. My print job has finished and I got to get the hell to work.

Karl hoenke
June 7, 2017 4:20 pm

Four questions which seem to elude the MSM:
1. What is the contribution of 7+ billion people breathing in 400 ppm CO2 and exhaling 5% CO2 (that’s 50,000 ppm)? I’ve done this estimate; it’s huge. Twentieth century CO2 increases track nicely with population increases. Either The Panel has buried these figures in other, less inconvenient categories or, being left out of models, it suggests additional source reductions need to be considered.
2. Is the radiant heat of 7+ billion metabolizing bodies significant?
3. If corals survived the 400 foot searise following the last glaciation, why are we agonizing over a few inches? Should someone remind the MSM?
4. Polar bears also survived the glacial periods and the warmer-than-now periods in between; has anyone tried to estimate the extent of Arctic ice cover during those warm periods? Should someone remind the MSM?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights