U.S. media conceal 4.5+ billion tons increase of CO2 by developing nations – push meaningless “sustainability” propaganda agenda

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

In the politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda campaign by the U.S mainstream media there is no limit to the degree of distortion, deception and dishonesty employed in attempts to conceal from the public the reality of global energy use and resulting emissions that is underway in the world that clearly demonstrates their propaganda war of alarmism is already lost.

Global energy and emissions data through year 2018 documents that the world’s developing nations have increased CO2 emissions by over 4.5 billion metric tons during the last decade and now account for 64% of the global emissions total.

China and India accounted for over 67% of the developing nations CO2 emissions growth through the use of increased fossil fuel – predominately coal fuel where China and India accounted for about 88% of developing nations increased coal use during the decade.

The U.S. decreased its CO2 emissions by about 530 million metric tons during this same period, more than any other nation in the world, largely through substituting lower cost, reliable and more efficient natural gas in place of coal.

The developing nations increased CO2 emissions were over 8.5 times greater than the size of the significant U.S. reduction.

China is continuing to increase coal use with plans to build hundreds of new coal plants in the coming decade.


Perhaps China is emboldened to proceed with its energy fossil fuel growth plans based in part on the results of its latest scientific climate evidence which determined that temperatures measured their are impacted by Urban Heat Island effects and not CO2 driven warming as falsely projected by UN IPCC climate models. China’s climate scientists have concluded that

“A comparison versus China urbanization records demonstrates that the regions characterized by a large Tmin-Tmax divergence are also the most densely populated ones, such as north-east China, that have experienced a diffused and fast urbanization since the 1940s. The results are significant and may indicate the presence of a substantial uncorrected urbanization bias in the Chinese climate records. Under the hypothesis that Tmax is a better metric for studying climatic changes than Tmean or Tmin, we conclude that about 50% of the recorded warming of China since the 1940s could be due to uncorrected urbanization bias. In addition, we also find that the Tmax record from May to October over China shows the 1940s and the 2000s equally warm, in contrast to the 1 °C warming predicted by the CMIP5 models.”


Despite the huge increased coal use by the developing nations during the last decade that were led by China (which also dominated global growth in CO2 emissions) which has plans for yet more coal plants in the future the U.S. media continues to conceal these outcomes from the public with an orchestrated propaganda campaign claiming that the U.S. and China are partners in “fighting climate change” as highlighted in the absurd article below.


The U.S. climate alarmist propaganda campaign is led by high profile political and government officials in concert with the alarmist media that are concealing from the public that the world, led by the developing nations, has significantly increased its use of fossil fuels and announced that it will continue to do so in the future. This propaganda campaign also conceals the unequivocal fact that the developing nations overwhelming dominate global energy use and emissions.

This propaganda campaign provides no specifics regarding how it will achieve its claims other than to create a bunch of “zero emissions” nonsense built around the trite political slogan of “sustainability.”


Another article addressing this “sustainability” slogan appeared in the Los Angeles Times regarding insurance rates in California relative to future sea level rise and wildfire outcomes which of course the Times asserts without scientific evidence are due to “climate change.”


The Times article made the same tired and scientifically unsupported claims of “9 foot” future sea level rise and increased wildfires based on climate change both of which are nothing but propaganda claims based on nothing but speculation and conjecture.

Decades of coastal sea level rise data show California is experiencing no sea level rise acceleration and that claims of accelerating sea level rise made in hearings before Congress in 1988 were wrong.



Additionally an evaluation of California’s wildfires by the Legislative Analyst Office concluded that there were extensive and pervasive failures on the part of the state that led to extremely poor forest management outcomes that occurred for decades that resulted in increased wildfires.


The examples below highlight just two many problem areas where the states forest management failures led to hugely decreased levels forest thinning and the waste of billions of dollars being spent on forest fire fighting instead of forest fire prevention through competent forest management actions.



The climate alarmist propaganda war to fabricate government entities that would control global energy use and emissions has failed. The world’s developing nations have taken control of their own energy and emissions destiny and as such have taken control of the world’s energy use and emissions outcomes because of their complete dominance in these global measures.

They have achieved this result without giving up their autonomy and decision making authority to illegitimate global government political schemers.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Al Miller
July 25, 2019 6:39 am

Thanks, great article, as usual. Let’s hope people here are waking up despite the duplicity of the media in the AGW fraud. I know most people don’t have the time and energy to do the research I have done, but they smell the BS too!

Alan Chapprll
Reply to  Al Miller
July 26, 2019 12:02 am

Now if The Donald tweeted this article ?

Jeremiah s Puckett
Reply to  Alan Chapprll
July 26, 2019 6:42 am

The Donald knows. That’s why he pulled us out of the Paris BS.

Jeremiah s Puckett
Reply to  Al Miller
July 26, 2019 6:41 am

There’s nothing to see here. Anyone who has actually read the Paris Climate Agreement knows what “promises” developing nations offered. China, for example, pledged to continue increasing CO² emissions until 2030 with NO promise to decrease them at a later date. Utter nonsense. Thank God Trump actually knew the truth. Too bad we can’t teach liberals a few facts. India’s promise was very similar to China’s.

July 25, 2019 6:59 am

so get your idiot govt to allow full birth control assistance to poor nations and stop being idiots over family planning abortion etc
the blokes wont fall for the free vasectomy free radio anymore.
and the women sure dont enjoy multiple pregnancies and risk from them either, but they have NO options

Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 25, 2019 7:11 am

education, yes. [elective] abortion a.k.a. selective-child a.k.a. “wicked solution” or women’s reproductive rites, no.

Reply to  n.n
July 25, 2019 11:27 am

How much more education is required? I suspect even the poorest of the poor in developing nations understand how pregnancy happens.
The “free” solution (abstinence) doesn’t seem to be working in reducing birthrates. (Perhaps they need more education on the subject.)
Everything else costs money (and works far better).

I wonder if better population control would be less expensive than border walls and ICE enforcements?

Reply to  Rocketscientist
July 25, 2019 3:23 pm

Apparently, they don’t understand evolution, specifically the reproductive process. For example, in first-world nations they have established a quasi-religion (“ethics”), Pro-Choice, not limited to women’s reproductive rites, that maintains human life is the product of spontaneous conception (“viability”), which they use to rationalize elective abortion under the planned parenthood protocol for social progress. This “choice” is, in fact, two choices too late. The first choice is abstinence. The second choice is prevention (education and technology). The third choice is adoption. The wicked solution is an unprecedented violation of human rights and intolerable. That said, emigration reform is necessary to mitigate the progress of immigration reform at both ends of the bridge and throughout.

Reply to  n.n
July 25, 2019 7:01 pm

The problem is you are assigning rights to something that not everyone agrees has rights and many of us would completely disagree. Your solution is to enforce your views on us, well sorry we don’t care what you think.

Reply to  n.n
July 26, 2019 8:04 am


The same was said for slavery: involuntary exploitation, redistributive change, and often diversity, at one time.

I acknowledge that some people have a twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, and liberal ideology. That said, life evolves from conception, not “viability” or spontaneous. Whether it’s one-child or selective-child, it’s a human rights issue.

Reply to  n.n
July 26, 2019 8:05 pm

Ah yes it’s a human right issue to you and so you drag in 5 other unrelated things. In some ways it doesn’t matter the pro life groups will win because USA is becoming increasingly non religious and the rate is accelerating. Walk forward 30 years and the number of politicians able to have a secular view on it will be interesting.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 25, 2019 8:00 am

The birth rate drops dramatically when people get low cost energy. Don’t waste money tilting at the birth rate with birth control, just get them cheap energy.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  wsbriggs
July 25, 2019 10:07 am

They get busy watching TV. That is how Portugal got control over their birthrate. Solar PV and free TV kits for rural areas. That was a long time ago. It works.

Reply to  wsbriggs
July 25, 2019 10:39 am

Give the developing 1) education and 2) raise their std of living if you want birth rates to fall. Cheap energy is a component for sure.

Reply to  wsbriggs
July 25, 2019 12:45 pm

Interestingly it has been demonstrated that the most effective method of reducing birthrates is providing for pension benefits for elderly citizens. Seems that families don’t need to have numerous members to generate enough future income to provide for gram and gramps if there are governmental provided old-age benefits.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
July 25, 2019 3:28 pm

The goal is not to reduce birthrates, but to increase responsible sex, reproduction, and development. The pension for the elderly is a consideration after mitigating progressive prices, immigration reform, and other factors that have been used to “share” or shift responsibility.

Reply to  n.n
July 25, 2019 7:03 pm

I love the concept of “responsible sex”, what is next you need a license for it?

Reply to  n.n
July 26, 2019 8:08 am


Well, not like progressive consent, which liberals have attempted to progress. More like recognizing women and men’s franchise and potential as mature, civilized human beings.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
July 25, 2019 3:51 pm

That’s counterintuitive and contrary to experience on two points. One, raising children is a resource intensive proposition. Two, well positioned grandparents reduce the first, and normalize reproduction.

Reply to  n.n
July 25, 2019 8:16 pm

In USA 30% of children are born out of wedlock and a somewhat larger percentage have little or no contact with grandparents and the number is increasing year on year. So not sure how you think that is going to normalize anything even in the States.

Reply to  n.n
July 26, 2019 8:07 am


Social liberalism has normalized a faith, religion, and ideology. This progression can be requalified to acknowledge and reconcile both science and human rights.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 25, 2019 3:34 pm

Let’s ignore the fact that pushing birth control on poor people has never worked.
Let’s ignore the fact that lots of people have valid reasons for not supporting abortion.

Let’s just force those dumb poor people to live as we tell them to live, regardless of whether to solutions work or are good for them.

PS: I love the way you pronounce yourself as the spokesmen for poor women everywhere when you so self righteously declare that none of them want, much less enjoy multiple pregnancies.

July 25, 2019 7:09 am

It’s a big industry that produces nothing.

July 25, 2019 7:16 am

The new EU Commissioner van der Leyen let the cat out of the bag – there will be an EU blanket CO2 tariff imposed on those countries they decide emit too much CO2. That’s targeting China and Russia, yet again.

This supranational scheme looks like a rehearsal for yet again, world gov’t.

At least it is a semitone lower than Lord Bertrand Russell’s UN with all the nukes under it’s umbrella. Now it’s everyone’s CO2, or else.

So the media were likely trumped by the EU’s van der Leyen.

Roger Knights
Reply to  bonbon
July 27, 2019 2:35 am

“The new EU Commissioner van der Leyen let the cat out of the bag – there will be an EU blanket CO2 tariff imposed on those countries they decide emit too much CO2.”

This will have the effect of a protectionist tariff. Maybe that’s part of its intent.

July 25, 2019 7:24 am

this graph has been out for a while >comment image

Reply to  Latitude
July 25, 2019 11:14 pm

‘The U.S. decreased its CO2 emissions by about 530 million metric tons during this same period’… but easily maintains its lead as the world’s biggest per capita emitters.

comment image

and as far as cumulative emissions go, a two horse race.

comment image?cb=1384917798

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 7:36 am

Well, the U.S. is one of the biggest per capita emitters because the U.S. is one of the biggest economies in the world accounting for about 25 percent of world GDP.. A booming economy necessarily needs lots of fossil fuels.

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 10:07 am

And yet, Chins pores more than Double the tonnage of CO2 into the atmosphere

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
July 26, 2019 5:05 pm

China pours

July 25, 2019 7:41 am

I am in england, london at the moment, and it was hot from the African heat wave, then about 20 mins ago, clouds covered the sun, and the heat went down, and the breeze was cool…. If the heatwave was due to african hot air being pushed this way, why did it start to cool almost straight away from just cloud cover????

Greg Woods
Reply to  Sunny
July 25, 2019 9:44 am

Radiation, the actual air temperature is much less.

Reply to  Sunny
July 25, 2019 3:36 pm

Given the fact that the clouds increased, it could have been a cold front moving through.

Farmer Ch E retired
July 25, 2019 8:13 am

“The U.S. decreased its CO2 emissions by about 530 million metric tons during this same period, more than any other nation in the world, largely through substituting lower cost, reliable and more efficient natural gas in place of coal.”

The U.S. decreased it’s CO2 emissions largely through sending manufacturing off-shore and returning the manufactured products to the U.S. in shipping containers. This in effect, launders our use of coal and low-wage workers. Thank you communist China for keeping our workers and coal usage out of sight and out of mind. /s

John MacDonald
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
July 25, 2019 3:29 pm

I’ve heard this reasoning many times. But, I’d like to see some real numbers that prove it. Right now it sounds like propaganda.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  John MacDonald
July 25, 2019 7:56 pm

JD – I also welcome data from those in the know on this. My intention is hardly propaganda. It seems very disingenuous that those claiming climate righteousness fail to recognize the carbon loading in the products they buy – especially from over seas. I’m retired so have less access and desire to do the research anymore. 10 or 15 years ago I worked with teams of experts evaluation government environmental remediation programs and we had folks that calculated the carbon footprint of certain remediation operations. Some remediation activities border on ludicrous. For example, contaminated groundwater barely above drinking water standards and with no down-gradient receptors would be pumped through activated carbon to remove the contaminates. The spent carbon would then be trucked many miles to facilities which regenerated the carbon by heating and in turn generating a significant quantity of CO2 emissions.
Again – I welcome a guest post or response to this comment on carbon loading of produces from China, India, or other countries.

July 25, 2019 8:20 am

What’s the easiest way to redistribute the world’s wealth? Globalization forced on industrial countries by removing their energy source. It’s easier to lower standards of the successful rather than raise the standards of the unsuccessful in the quest for uniformity.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  markl
July 25, 2019 9:41 am

Western nations are very problematic to the less-free developing nations. All nations are developing. Some always stay ahead of others because of structural advantages (form of government for one).

July 25, 2019 8:21 am

These kind of CO2 accounting is completely missleading and meaningless. Most of the CO2 emitted by the so called “developing nations” is, in reality, to be accounted also to the countries that consume products generated in those nations, including USA and European Union (the so called “green champions”). Most of the times are products that are made by enterprises that were delocalized by economical reasons (mostly cheap labour). There would not be Aeolian Generators in England if several tons of CO2 would not be emitted by China to extract and refine several raw materials such as Neodymium. See Apple example for instance – designed in… and assembled and made in…consumed worldwide. To whom must we account all the CO2 emitted in the process??? Completely meaningless…

Reply to  JN
July 25, 2019 9:15 am

Correct….. it’s a net sum zero in the end but it does redistribute the wealth which is the goal of AGW and that’s why this ‘inconvenient truth’ is never mentioned. The big elephant in the room is China who despite being the second largest economy in the world is listed as a developing nation. Say what?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  JN
July 25, 2019 9:42 am

Actually, what’s completely meaningless is CO2 emissions themselves.

But on the subject of “developing nations,” the expanding of their electric grid to areas which never have had any electricity in the past has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing of products to be sold “off shore” to “developed” nations, so your “version” of the “accounting” is every bit as suspect. The number of automobiles in China, as another example, has exploded with their economic expansion and growing wealth. I suppose you would have “developed” nations become “responsible” for the changeover from bicycles to autos for sizable amounts of Chinese transport as well?

“Accounting” of CO2 is meaningless – the fact of the matter is that “developed” nations CANNOT materially impact CO2 emissions, because their emissions are now eclipsed by “developing” nations, and they will continue to be so in the future to an even greater degree. So all attempts by “developed” nations to materially impact CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use are nothing more than MEANINGLESS, UNNECESSARILY EXPENSIVE, and DAMAGING “virtue signaling bullshit” that wouldn’t solve the “climate crisis” if the “climate crisis” was actually real. Which is is NOT.

So what CONTINUES to be meaningless is the notion that the U.S., the EU, or any other “developed” nation is going to have ANY impact on TOTAL CO2 emissions, in view of WHERE those emissions are largely coming FROM, which of course the “media” serially neglects to “report” on, lest the “Climate Crisis” propaganda lose its hold on the unwashed masses.

Jeremiah s Puckett
Reply to  JN
July 26, 2019 6:37 am

Can you show a single fact to what you’re saying? Can you show how these numbers are generated and what isn’t included in them? No, you can’t. You are spewing guesses and garbage. You did touch on some hidden fact, though. The “green” energy sector produces a massive amount of CO² in other countries so Tesla and Prius batteries can be made. But again, how do you know the CO2 emissions aren’t charged to where the product is being exported?

Roger Knights
Reply to  JN
July 27, 2019 2:40 am

“To whom must we account all the CO2 emitted in the process??? Completely meaningless…”

Not if we assume, as warmists assert, that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. Then the developing nations are deliberately choosing to pollute.

DR Healy
July 25, 2019 9:25 am

Regarding Figure 4 showing the decline in harvesting, the flip side is even more crucial; the volume of merchantable timber in the U.S., which is only part of the fuel load issue, is now 60% greater than it was in 1953. This is a massive problem that can only be corrected by re-establishing our forest products industry so we can reduce overall fuel load in an economically efficient way.

Joel Snider
July 25, 2019 9:56 am

This clearly illustrates the folly of the western world abandoning fossil fuels. It’s called ‘Darwin’. If we don’t use cheap affordable energy, others will, and then they will become the new dominant economy, and pump all that scary C02 into the atmosphere, anyway.

And greenies even pervert and enable THIS – ‘we can’t tell them ‘no’ after we’ve got ours’ – how many times you heard that? Certainly, a notable poster on this site has parroted this sentiment.

So, the only way to ‘stop’ fossil fuel use is total control – for almost no returns, remember – and at the same time that totalitarian control WON’T be extended specifically to our biggest rivals, biggest emitters, undercutting the non-returns that were never there in the first place.

All under the auspice that we can regulate – sorry ‘mitigate’ – the climate, anyway.

Steve Z
July 25, 2019 10:04 am

That tide gauge graph was a classic example of extreme extrapolation to create a scare when the data do not justify it, or “How to Lie with Statistics”. It looks like sea level rose about 10 inches in 160 years (1865 to 2015) at a nearly constant rate. A linear extrapolation (justifiable from data from the recent past) would result in an additional 5 to 6 inches by 2100, which would be a small problem that could be easily managed by building seawalls in appropriate areas.

What is the scientific justification for the red line showing a nearly parabolic increase, or an average rate of increase 20 times the actual rate of increase from the past 160 years? Any acceleration must be caused by a forcing function, but the recent data from 1990 to 2015 show a DEceleration in the sea level rise rate, so what is the forcing function for this future acceleration?

Did the person who drew the red line ever study statistics?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Steve Z
July 26, 2019 12:13 am

The guy who drew the red line understands propaganda and how alarmist messages can register with a naive public.

The psychology books and psychology scholars all tell us the evidence is quite clear: most people will go a long way to avoid a perceived negative impact to their wealth or health. But only a few will take on the risk to acquire a true movement when the “conventional wisdom” warns against them. Thus alarmist scams can work as people want to avoid the negative, yet will give up their financial future if they perceive some risk there.
Pain avoidance is a stronger motivator than an uncertain positive outcome if one chooses to ignore the path promoted. It is also similar to a herd effect. GroupThink psychology also overlaps these ideas.

The climate alarmist scam is all about pushing GroupThink, utilizing the herd effect (not wanting to be left out), and other emotional irrationality while the climate hustlers pick the middle class’s pockets clean for their enrichment.

On the outer Barcoo
July 25, 2019 10:36 am

“Unfreedeom of the Press” by Mark Levin neatly sums up the MO of the MSM

Joe B
July 25, 2019 12:14 pm

I just wrote a brief, respectful, fact filled comment on the ‘Resilience’ site in response to a new article on methane emissions.

Naturally, it was blocked.

This has been an ongoing practice where several ‘progressive’ sites such as Desmog blog and others prevent their motivated, sincere followers from being exposed to alternative, ugly, truths.

No wonder the public forum is becoming one of zealous, foaming at the mouth ignoramuses full of sound and fury, incapable of rational thought.

Joel O'Bryan
July 25, 2019 12:31 pm

“…the U.S. media continues to conceal these outcomes from the public with an orchestrated propaganda campaign claiming that the U.S. and China are partners in “fighting climate change” …

The behind the scenes multi-layered coordination and deep-pocketed funding of this orchestrated propaganda campaign for promoting the Renewable Energy scams (RE-scams)would absolutely floor the US public if the full-extent of this disinformation warfare campaign it ever became public knowledge. Truly epic proportions. It is why many universities (like Yale) have geared up “climate communications” programs.

Follow the money. Lots and lots of money is now flowing across a wide web of networked outlets and coordinators. Their central purpose is to coordinate the climate propo campaign, from getting pseudoscientists like Mann spewing nonsense on TWC, to LA Times promoting some rent-seeking climate charlatan’s latest alarmist paper, to passing coordinated climate huckster talking point papers to Democrats from DC to Sacramento to spew out on legislative chambers and the campaign trail. Lots of coordination. Because there is fabulous wealth to be had if they can re-structure electricity production, fleecing the middle class with much higher bills, and funneling the money flow to their pockets.

There’s no future in the old-school journalism, at least at the numbers produced from colleges-universtities 20 years ago or more. Instead, today’s college kiddies, those who 10,20,30 years ago would have gone to traditional journalism majors are now being steered into “climate propaganda” promotion careers. The reason is simple economics for them, lots of money and jobs in climate propaganda right now across a full range on ENGOs, charitable trusts, and other deeply invested in the REscam. And this climate propo war the REscam is running is just getting started. It’ll will have to run for decades if it is to succeed in keeping the gullible American public blinded to reality.

As the foundations of the science of climate change and the claimed reasons against US-Canadian-Australian and European fossil fuel use becomes shakier (as Larry describes above, the emissions growth in developing world), and more evidently flawed (some examples that won’t be lost on many people: continuing cold harsh winters, no SLR acceleration, no worsening of hurricanes from 50-70 years ago, cheap abundant natural gas offering to keep electricity prices in check, US energy dominance keeping the economy going, etc), the REscam deep-money interests (Stye, Bloomy, Soon-Shiong, the Rockefellers, etc) will need an evermore sophisticated Climate Propaganda campaign. With lots of young, indoctrinated Millennials dependent on the jobs, just like the scientific community became Rent-seekers dependent on climate cash.

Make no mistake, the climate propo wars are just getting started. They badly need to defeat Donald Trump in 2020 as their first main goal. Trump’s installing conservative, constitutional originalist Supreme Court justices in a second term (replacing at least 2 aging liberal justices by 2024), continued conservative federal judge appointments, unwillingness to support a carbon tax scheme or limits on oil and gas developments, and complete refusal to accept any UNFCCC COP economic suicide deal are animating the REscam propagandists right now. They have too much money at stake to walk away.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 25, 2019 2:51 pm

Trump was a very unexpected set-back for them.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 26, 2019 12:02 am

The main point is the public would be absolutely floored if they knew how deeply funded, multi-layered, and coordinated is the on-going Climate Propo Campaign against their financial interests. A climate propaganda campaign that even if it succeeds will bring zero measurable impacts on climate even if you accept the climate models as claimed. And for all the Trillions of dollars wasted that could have been spent on infrastructure, that is money that will never be recovered, becasue its now in Tom Steyer’s newest Gulfstream-V and Bloomberg’s newest mega-Yacht, and the hundreds other rich elitists profiting handsomely from their RE climate scam investments.

July 25, 2019 4:37 pm

China’s climate scientists have concluded that…
A well-known Italian contrarian has concluded that…

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 25, 2019 9:45 pm

Nick Stokes has commented that…

July 25, 2019 4:45 pm

Whilst I can understand the likes of the UN and its child, the IPCC pushing for what is clearly world government, just another name for Communism.

And in the days of the Soviet Union using “”Pravda”” its propaganda arm to “”Inform”” the public, I cannot understand the fact that most of the US Media is pushing the CO2 and CC at all.

There must be other things happening n the US, to fill the blank pages, or air time. i

They are supposed to be private enterprise, so unless all of the shareholders are socialists, why is this particular line being pushed.

True the facts seem to show that today’s so called reporters lean to the left, but what about the editor and finally the CEO’s of the Media.

Perhaps the Democrats have bought massive amounts of shares in the US Media.

Second item. Its CO2, all the rest are just words. Prove that CO2 is
a good and essential gas, and all of this nonsense will go away.


Reply to  Michael
July 25, 2019 6:43 pm

Prove that CO2 is harmful in the wild. Prove that life begins at viability.

That said, the incentive is to establish monopolies and practices, suppression of competing interests, and other central/single schemes to promote the minority welfare.

Bryan A
Reply to  n.n
July 25, 2019 9:52 pm

CO2 is only dangerous in its feral Climate Study state but farmers have proven that CO2 can be domesticated

michael hart
July 25, 2019 6:58 pm

The city of Washington, DC is less than half the population of the Chinese city ranked 50th in size.

The US media (and quite a few politicians) have difficulty grasping even this kind of simple arithmetic.

Douglas Adams invented a device called The Total Perspective Vortex which allowed sentient beings to view their own tiny insignificance when compared to the rest of creation. It invariably resulted in destroying the brains of those exposed to such a stark reality (with one notable exception).

July 25, 2019 10:53 pm

“In the politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda campaign by the U.S mainstream media there is no limit to the degree of distortion, deception and dishonesty employed in attempts to conceal from the public the reality of global energy use and resulting emissions that is underway in the world that clearly demonstrates their propaganda war of alarmism is already lost.”

Larry, this is hilarious. You must have been guffawing into your Glenfiddich when you wrote that.
Elsewhere in the “world”, the U.S mainstream media don’t really make much difference.

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 10:10 am

Globally, the US Media only makes as much difference in the Debate as US emissions do

Tom Abbott
July 26, 2019 7:55 am

From the article: “Under the hypothesis that Tmax is a better metric for studying climatic changes than Tmean or Tmin”

That’s what I’m talking about!!! 🙂

The reason using Tmax is significant is because Tmax shows there is no unprecedented warming of the globe and therefore there is no CO2 problem and no CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) crisis.

Here’s a link to a WUWT article with Tmax charts of various nations (the bottom third of the article). They all show that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today. They all show that there is NO unprecedented warming of the Earth’s climate today. This also applies to nations in the southern hemisphere, although no Tmax charts of those are included in the article.


I’m with the Chinese: Let’s go with the Tmax charts and dispense with the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts, when we are trying to figure out whether we are experiencing unpredendented warming or not.

Tom Abbott
July 26, 2019 8:06 am

From the article: “In addition, we also find that the Tmax record from May to October over China shows the 1940s and the 2000s equally warm, in contrast to the 1 °C warming predicted by the CMIP5 models.”

That’s the same temperature profile as the U.S. surface temperature chart where the 1930’s were just as warm as today. Hansen said, in the U.S., 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and that makes 1934, 0.4C warmer than 2016, so CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1940 cannot be said to have caused any additional warmth today because it was just as warm in the past with much less CO2 in the atmosphere.

That’s also the same temperature profile as all the other unmodified, historic surface temperature charts from around the world, i.e.. the temperatures were just as warm in the 1930’s as they are today. There is no unpredented warming of the Earth.

The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick temperature charts are science fiction created to sell the CAGW fraud. They cannot be reconciled with the Tmax charts of the world. The tell two completely different stories. One is a true story, and one is false.

Steve O
July 26, 2019 12:08 pm

Why should we trust this crowd when it comes to creating and interpreting the results of complex models of a chaotic system when they are so utterly incapable of basic analysis.

Their approach to addressing climate change begins with the assumption that it can be addressed through decreased CO2 emissions. That’s not merely an unjustified assumption, or even a highly dubious one. It’s clearly a false assumption. To be rational, the analysis needs to start with that recognition.

Now, regarding proposed wealth transfers from rich nations to those who are too corrupt to have functioning economies of their own: Those are not logical.
– First, wealth transfers will substantially increase the CO2 emissions of these nations, and I thought we were in an emergency crisis situation. Sorry about any unfairness, but life on earth is at stake, right?
– Second, why is it that these nations can adjust to a warmer climate if given money but not the rest of the world? Why not just Everybody adjust to a warmer climate?

Further proof that this crowd can’t be trusted to operate the office stapler is the focus on wind and solar power over nuclear.

It’s almost as if they don’t really believe the issue is all that urgent.

Rudolf Huber
July 26, 2019 4:10 pm

Co2 is only bad for the climate if it has been emitted in a developed country. Why? Because developing countries don’t give a damn about the foibles of some smartphone totting, parent home living youths that want to have a party every Friday. They have much more fundamental problems to grapple with than the self-realization of some candy-girls and daddy-boys. So, developed country CO2 is bad and must be banned – they can pay for extremely overpriced solutions that – are no solutions at all as they don’t work. Make sure the fossil backup is working – we don’t want the Pizza oven to go cold – that’s bad for parties. Oh, and the developing nation CO2 won’t matter much – because this whole Climate Change hysteria is nothing but a giant heist. To separate some rich folks from their cash – the only problem is that there are plenty of “middle-of-he-road” folks in those rich countries and they get crushed.

July 27, 2019 9:50 pm

Mann made global warming is the Trojan horse of the left wing globalists and their media bunk buddies .
They can’t let it be taken apart or the whole thing disintegrates .
Who gets the cash as the fraud is fueled ? The most polluting countries of course .

%d bloggers like this: