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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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!
Shameful Misdirection of Priorities: 75% of Black California Boys don’t meet State Reading Standards While California Focuses on Climate Change
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/shameful-misdirection-of-priorities-75-of-black-california-boys-dont-meet-state-reading-standards-and-california-worries-about-climate-change/
Can’t have young people knowing how to read, write and do arithmetic. Makes them hard to control.
Ufortunately, I think there is a lot of truth to your comment.
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.
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?