California Democrats promote climate propaganda supporting Biden’s flawed “extreme heat” campaign

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The Orange County Register ran an editorial by Democratic State Senator Bob Hertzberg and Assemblywoman Luz Rivas which relied on numerous flawed climate claims in support of Biden and the Democrats national “extreme heat” propaganda campaign that is debunked in WUWT articles here and here.

The Register article notes that “high temperatures” that occurred in Woodland Hills last year are examples of  “extreme heat” that is increasing and caused by climate change as addressed in their comments below: 

“We both proudly represent communities in the San Fernando Valley, and our neighborhoods felt the brunt of these extreme heat phenomena. Woodland Hills hit a record 121 degrees last year, the highest temperature ever recorded in Los Angeles County. These extreme heat events will only worsen, as the California Energy Commission expects the state to experience an average of 40 to 53 extreme heat days by 2050.”

“This is just one example of the direct impacts our changed climate is having on our neighborhoods. It’s not headline-grabbing like the other natural disasters our state is facing, but deaths from extreme heat exceed that of any other weather events.” No data is provided to support this supposed claim.

Apparently, Hertzberg and Rivas don’t know that climate scientists around the world have always used measurements of  “temperature anomaly” not “absolute temperatures” to address national, regional and global climate temperature change trends.

All anyone needs to do is Google “temperature anomaly” to understand the significant difference between “absolute temperature” versus “temperature anomaly” measurement data that climate scientists rely upon to address climate related temperature changes as noted below.

What do temperature anomalies mean?

Temperature anomalies are useful for deriving average surface temperatures because they tend to be highly correlated over large distances (of the order of 1000 km). In other words, anomalies are representative of temperature changes over large areas and distances.

Why do we use temperature anomalies?

Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

NOAA measurements of temperature anomaly data across the contiguous 48 U. S. States (Parameter: Maximum Temperature Anomaly; Time Scale: 1-Month; Months: All Months) using its most reliable USCRN temperature anomaly measurement data system establishes that the U.S. is not experiencing increasing “extreme heat” as presented and established below using NOAA temperature anomaly data which clearly shows that the nations maximum temperature anomaly measurement data has no increasing trend and in fact has declined since temperature anomaly peaks in years 2006 and 2012.

NOAA maximum temperature anomaly data for the 48 contiguous states proves that the U.S. is not experiencing increasing “extreme heat” trends and Democrat claims otherwise are unsupported by scientific data. Democrats are improperly trying to use localized-weather absolute temperature events to define national, regional and global climate temperature change behavior which is scientifically invalid.  

Additionally, the Democrats alarmists claims of increasing heat waves occurring across the U.S. because of climate change are unsupported by Biden’s own EPA data which shows that the U.S. in not experiencing increased occurrences or intensity of heat waves based on EPA’s 125 years of extreme heat event trending data across the U.S. from 1895 through 2020 as shown below. (Biden’s Democrat driven climate alarmist politics drove EPA to try and conceal this data as exposed in a prior WUWT article.)

Additionally Democrats propaganda claims that increasing heat related death rates are occurring across the U.S. because of more heat waves (which have been shown to be false) are unsupported by EPA’s own data which shows that U.S. heat related deaths rates (underlying and contributing cause of death) are declining.

Even more embarrassing for the Democrat’s “extreme heat” shenanigans is that EPA data shows that cold related deaths (underlying and contributing cause of death) are increasing as shown below. Furthermore, comparing the latest year EPA rates of heat and cold related deaths in the U.S. reveals that cold related deaths are nearly twice (5.5 deaths per million versus 2.9 deaths per million) that of heat related deaths.

The Democrat’s deliberate concealment of extensive, long time period and highly relevant NOAA nationwide temperature anomaly measurement data as well as EPA nationwide annual heat wave index data and EPA heat and cold related death rate data while highlighting and hyping local temperature weather outcomes to attempt to justify their claim that the U.S. is experiencing increasing “extreme heat” and heat related death rates are scientifically invalid and represents nothing but climate alarmist political propaganda

The Register article goes on to hype the usual Democrat claims that California is “fighting climate change” through politically contrived schemes such as planting trees mandating electric vehicles, etc. as noted below. (The article fails to mention the state’s mandated costly $25+ billion, unreliable blackout plagued and bureaucratically onerous renewable energy schemes.) 

“Urban tree planting is one of the most noticeable and beneficial actions we take as a state. Trees are our best natural first line of defense against climate change. They not only provide crucial shade to playgrounds and sidewalks to protect kids against harmful heat, they also trap carbon and help clean our air.”

“Beyond climate resiliency, we’re investing in California’s transition to clean electric vehicles. The budget provides incentives to manufacturers and buyers to make electric vehicles more affordable and accessible, while also investing in crucial infrastructure like charging stations in more communities of color.”

“California is fighting a two-front war: on one end, we’re working to cut down our carbon emissions to protect future generations, and on the other, we’re battling a climate already changed so we can protect families from its deadly effects.”

These political schemes are completely irrelevant to global energy use and emissions with this reality hidden and concealed from the state’s residents by Democrats.     

The U.S. and EU who have been driving the UN IPCC climate alarmism political campaign for over 30 years have now completely lost the ability to control global energy and emissions outcomes through the IPCC’s flawed climate model contrived schemes.

In 1990 the year of the first UN IPCC climate report the world’s developed nations led by the U.S. and EU were accountable for nearly 58% of all global energy use and 55% of all global emissions. But that dominance in global energy use and emissions by the developed nations changed dramatically and completely disappeared over the next 15-year period.     

The world’s developing nations led by China and India took command of total global energy use in 2007 (controlling more than 50% of all global energy use) after dominating total global emissions in 2003 (controlling more than 50% of global emissions). 

In year 2020 the developing nations controlled 61% of all global energy use and 67% of all global emissions with these nations clearly on a path to further increase these commanding percentages in the future. The developing nations have no interest in crippling their economies by kowtowing to the western nation’s flawed model driven climate alarmism political propaganda campaign with the developing nations having announced to the world that they are fully committed to increased use of coal and other fossil fuels. 

In year 2020 the developing nations consumed 82% of all global coal use with China alone consuming 54% of the world’s coal. China was the only nation in the world that increased both energy use and emissions in pandemic year 2020.

The U.S. and EU have not contributed to the increasing level of global emissions over the last 15 years. In fact, these nations reduced emissions during this time period by many billions of metric tons. Yet global emissions have continued to dramatically climb ever higher by many more billions of tons driven exclusively by the increased use and unstoppable growth of fossil fuel energy by the world’s developing nations. 

Assertions by U.S. and EU politicians that massively costly, horrendously onerous and bureaucratically driven reductions of emissions will “fight climate change” along with bizarre claims of supporting a “net zero” future are ludicrous, disingenuous and represent nothing less than completely fraudulent proposed schemes.

California plays an absolutely irrelevant and non existent role in “fighting climate change” since any actions it takes are so minuscule (as shown below in millions of metric tons) they have no consequence at the global level where emissions continue to climb ever upward by many billions of metric tons (as shown below) driven exclusively by the world’s developing nations lead by China and India. 

It’s time for the developed nations to stop their scientifically incompetent, globally irrelevant, real world inept and purely politically driven flawed climate model alarmist propaganda campaign.

For more than 4 decades the UN IPCC climate reports have emphasized the use of global monthly temperature anomaly measurement systems increasing trends to hype to the world that global CO2 emissions are driving global temperatures ever upward and demanded that global nations must damage their economies by undertaking massive renewable energy expenditures to reduce energy related CO2 emissions while destroying their availability of reliable and economic coal and natural gas energy resources. 

The UK and EU are now facing severe energy reliability, availability and high out of control costs as a results of their actions toward this UN IPCC approach and yet global emissions continue to climb ever upward driven by the world’s developing nations led by China and India.

The media in the U.S. is largely ignoring the UK and EU massive energy reliability and cost debacle brought about because of excessive mandates for use of costly unreliable renewables and failure to develop and utilize their regional resources for natural gas through fracking technology.

This strategic failure has resulted in huge increases in UK and EU natural gas prices versus the U.S. (which pursued fracking technology despite objections from Democrats and achieved energy independence prior to the debacle of the Biden Presidency) as shown in the graph below.

The 5 major global temperature anomaly measurement systems (UAH, RSS, GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT) have all shown declining monthly temperature anomaly trends for 5+ years since early year 2016 and yet these clearly apparent anomaly declines remain unaddressed by the climate alarmist community that seems deaf and dumb to these trends as well as to the energy debacle that is now underway in the UK and EU.

Biden and the Democrats have undertaken a deliberate political campaign to ignore global “temperature anomaly” data that directly addresses climate change related temperature impacts and instead have attempted to substitute discussion of “absolute temperatures” in its place fully knowing this approach is scientifically flawed and invalid. This scientifically flawed climate alarmist political campaign has been undertaken because national, regional and global temperature anomaly measurement data trends do not support climate alarmist claims of continually increasing temperature anomaly climate change as discussed below.  

The global monthly temperature anomaly measurement trends of all 5 systems (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS and NOAA) are shown below with all updated through August of 2021.

The declining monthly global temperature anomaly measurement trends since 2016 of the UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS and NOAA global temperature measurement systems reflected above are more clearly shown below for the 5+ year period from 2016 through 2021.

Additionally, the global CO2 atmospheric concentration as measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory is also shown for the period form 2016 through 2021 showing global CO2 levels have continued their upward climb during this 5+ year period while global temperature anomaly measurements have experienced declining trends unaddressed by the climate alarmist media community.

Biden and the Democrats are deliberately ignoring scientifically valid national, regional and global temperature anomaly data which is not supporting their climate alarmist political story of ever increasing global temperatures (as scientifically determined through use of measured temperature anomaly data systems) and instead are conducting a political campaign trying to substitute scientifically invalid absolute temperature measurement propaganda in place of well-established climate science temperature anomaly measurement data.      

California Democrat politicians need to stop concealing the states massively costly but complete irrelevance in global energy and emissions outcomes that is clearly obvious to the rest of the world and instead start addressing relevant issues that have some opportunity for beneficial outcomes for the people of California.   

4.6 16 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 16, 2021 6:25 am

Nevermind the climate bolleaux, get the Orange County Lumber Truck (fossil fuelled).

The Mothers Of Invention: The Orange County Lumber Truck (2012 Remaster) – YouTube

We all know it’s about the narrative and nothing else.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 16, 2021 7:19 am

Fascinating how easy it is to convince people of something totally untrue by shouting it at them over and over. Their bodies may be shivering and asking for a sweater but they KNOW in their hearts that it really is sweltering. After all, look at all the experts who proclaim daily how the planet is overheating and we are all gonna die. Al Gore, Bill Nye, Michael Mann, Harvard, and Yale wouldn’t lie to us, would they?

Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 16, 2021 7:27 am

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” – Joseph Goebbels

Reply to  ScienceABC123
October 16, 2021 10:21 am

the full quote is also interesting:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister for The Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda 
“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play. The tune does not matter, so long it is the only one the public is allowed to hear. Eventually they will all dance.” – Joseph Goebbels

The elite have read the book, memorized it and are fully implementing what they learned from the previous masters of evil. Vaccine anyone?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RetiredEE
October 17, 2021 6:41 am

““Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play. The tune does not matter, so long it is the only one the public is allowed to hear. Eventually they will all dance.” – Joseph Goebbels”

That’s an even better quote, and applicable to today.

October 16, 2021 7:26 am

All of these “extreme heat” stories are going to cease come January/February…

Reply to  ScienceABC123
October 16, 2021 7:38 am

Another given, anyone who comments on any extreme cold events this coming winter will be told in no uncertain terms, that they need to learn the difference between climate and weather.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  ScienceABC123
October 16, 2021 11:54 am

They won’t. That’s high summer in the southern hemisphere.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 16, 2021 12:52 pm

I apologize for my “northern hemisphere” privilege. 😉

October 16, 2021 7:31 am

Looking at the 2nd chart, I’m reminded of griff’s frequent claims that having 2 or 3 heat waves in the US in one year, is proof of global warming.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Gordon A. Dressler
October 16, 2021 7:47 am

Let’s go, Brandon!

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 16, 2021 8:37 am

Follow the bouncing ball to sing along –

October 16, 2021 7:53 am

That is one frightening photo!

October 16, 2021 7:59 am

The OC Register was founded by a conservative/libertarian. It has since been sold to a hedge fund and has taken on a strong neoconservative odor.

October 16, 2021 8:28 am

Just saying that I prefer the begin weather we are and have been enjoying since my birth in 1958 over the weather from the previous 63 years (1895 – 1958). I am glad I did not have to experience the 1930’s or the extreme weather events in the first 20 years of the 1900’s .

October 16, 2021 8:51 am

There is no electricity for you this week comrade. Come back later…

California Scrambles to Find Electricity to Offset Plant Closures (

October 16, 2021 10:01 am


Robert Hanson
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 16, 2021 3:33 pm

I wouldn’t press that meme too far. Lots of democrats voted for Reagan, and then Trump. There’s a good chance many more will vote conservative next year. Demonizing for their prior party affiliation won’t help them wake up and smell the coffee.

October 16, 2021 11:26 am

Well … “extreme heat” disproportionately harms BIPOC communities who cannot afford to live in the toney beach neighborhoods of Malibu or Newport Beach … where the ocean breezes maintain comfortable temperatures. Climate Justice DEMANDS that BIPOC peoples be GIVEN the homes of white folks living in beach communities. Anything less is “racist” … Right?

October 16, 2021 11:31 am

A temperature anomaly is the difference between the absolute temperature and a specified base average temperature for that location. Or if the anomaly is for a period, such as a month, it is the difference between two averages. As such anomalies are far less accurate than absolute temperatures for a single time. Temperatures are measured but averages are estimated. Their advantage is that one can compare changes across places with different absolute temperatures but there is a heavy price, especially if the specified base averages are for different periods in different places.

If anomalies are coordinated across large areas that must be the result of bogus homogenizing adjustments, because warming and cooling are not smooth across large areas, far from it.

October 16, 2021 12:16 pm

These extreme heat events will only worsen, as the California Energy Commission expects the state to experience an average of 40 to 53 extreme heat days by 2050.”

Democrats are now claiming that their political appointees are psychic. That is the only way that the California Energy Commission, an appointed group, can tell the future.

So there you have it. Unelected and psychic California Energy Commissioners are in charge of all energy planning for 40 million people.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Doonman
October 16, 2021 3:46 pm

Fossil fuel use is not the cause of global warming. From 1960 until 2020 the atmospheric CO2 level increased only 1/100th of one percent. Be careful what type of trees you plant to counter the rise in atmospheric CO2. Mapping based upon data from the OCO-2 satellite often links the highest levels of CO2 with the location of forests and jungles containing broadleaf trees.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Bill Everett
October 16, 2021 7:14 pm

In 1960 CO2 levels were about 315ppm they are now over 415ppm. How is that an increase of only 1/100th of one percent?

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 17, 2021 8:04 am

100 ppm – one hundred parts per million. So, 100 / 1,000,000 = 1/10,000 = 0.01%.

CO2’s share of the atmosphere increased 0.01%.

October 16, 2021 5:04 pm

Not only the Register but the LA times has run a series of 4 (so far) articles about how heat is killing people in vast numbers. They completely ignore the 15 times death rate due to cold.

Even though the Register is in conservative Orange County, they sold their journalistic(?) soul many years ago and most of their “news” articles are just reprints of NY Times and UP crap.

Reply to  john
October 16, 2021 5:05 pm

The second paragraph should read: most of their “news” articles are just reprints of NY Times and AP crap

Geoff Sherrington
October 16, 2021 5:04 pm

Observed (here, absolute) temperatures show events like heat waves at a single weather station, just the same as anomaly temperatures do. It is best to use observed temperatures because anomaly temperatures have an averaging process over a time period that might or might not be relevant to the exercise.
Using observed temperatures for the 6 Australian State capital cities, some from the 1860s to now, I have often posted an analysis that shows it is wrong to claim that these heatwaves are getting longer, hotter and more frequent. What more do you need to know?
There will usually be a difference between observed and anomaly temperature analysis when averages are calculated from a number of weather stations. The anomaly method, for example, tends to smooth differences between stations at different altitudes from lapse rate effects. On the question of which is best to use, I would answer that neither is. As others have noted, what is the meaning of the average of two temperatures, one on the coast and another inland and subject to different temperature influences (like cooling, afternoon sea breezes).
There is not much reward for arguing about whether observed or anomaly temperatures are best to use for this or that. Used properly, both should give the same outcome because the one, same thermometer is the source of the numbers. Selection of one or another is dominantly to allow misuse of analysis to produce a pre-determined, preferred result while concealing that it might be wrong. Geoff S

Shanghai Dan
October 17, 2021 7:59 am

I remember that day (September 6th, 2020) – and looked up the records for it. Here in Ventura, CA – just 40 miles West – we were in the low-mid 80s (normal) most of the day, except for a 1-2 hour “spike” to 100. It was a hot blast of air coming down out of the mountains/valleys (a micro Santa Ana) that rolled through. At 1 PM? 83 deg. At 2 PM? 84 deg. At 4 PM? 100 deg. At 6 PM? 77 deg.

A quick, sharp spike from a wicked wind out of the hot desert valleys.

Probably the exact same thing that happened in Woodland Hills, as it’s less “hills and woodland” than most think, being right at the Northeastern foot of the Santa Monica Mountains, loaded with lots of canyons (perfect for motorcycle riding) that often superheat the air, especially as it pours into the valley. It’s centered at the Northern entrance to Topanga Canyon, a main canyon in those mountains.

In Woodland Park, 2 days before that big spike it was in the mid 70s during the day, and same 2 days after that spike – if anything a bit unseasonably cool. The fact there was a quick, sharp heating event and spike says it was local weather, NOT climate. And something we see quite often in the fall when the Santa Anas blow all over, bringing hot desert air and adding compression as it tumbles down out of the mountain valleys…

October 17, 2021 8:00 am

The way climate science uses anomalies is just wrong. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how to perform time-series analysis. This is easily seen by the fact that they have to roll forward the 30-year window for calculating “averages” used to then calculate anomalies. The reason given in the post that anomalies are correlated across wide geographic areas is just hand waving. A time series of temperature data from a particular location should first be deseasonalized. With monthly data, it means taking the 12th difference. When you do this, you lose the first year of data. However, you never have to move a 30-year window forward, which completely changes the anomalies previously used. Next, you want to check for stationarity. This is really the question that is being asked. If the time series of temperature data isn’t stationary, the mean of the series is not defined. You can bring to bear in a rigorous way the tools of time series analysis with this approach. I don’t disagree with much of the post. It’s just that the anomaly approach is just wrong from the start. In fact, aggregating temperatures to get a single series has no mathematical foundation. Climate science is rotten to the core.

October 17, 2021 9:58 am

I think they actually ARE likely to achieve their goals if they keep going like they are. But not in the way they expect. An overall collapse of western civilization would reduce emissions quite significantly.

October 17, 2021 6:24 pm

C’mon Larry, everyone knows there’s a maximum intelligence limit here in CA to be a Senate or Assembly member! /sarc

%d bloggers like this: