L A Times UN Climate Report Editorial Lacks Competence & Credibility

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The L A Times published an Editorial on March 21, 2023 addressing the latest United Nations climate alarmist report propaganda (as shown below) which the Times Editorial Board swallows hook, line and sinker with incompetent and grossly incomplete analysis. 

These UN IPCC climate report “updates” have been ongoing for the last 30+ years with each of these alarming “update” climate agreement proposed schemes having no meaningful impact on reducing global emissions as shown below on the left from IEA data (with recovery in 2021 from the year 2020 Covid lockdowns) or atmospheric CO2 levels as shown below on the right from Mauna Loa Observatory data with an overlay of the many politically contrived UN IPCC climate “update” cabals in the last 30+ years.

These UN IPCC climate alarmist political “update” cabals always pose some specious alarmist global warming scheme where the world’s demise is alleged to be threatened if immediate action is not taken to reduce CO2 emissions. 

This latest updated world demise scheme is driven by IPCC extrapolated global temperature projections postulating that the Earth’s average temperature anomaly will increase by 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial times by 2035 and wreak climate havoc unless we wipe out fossil fuels and go green with wind and solar power.

The IPCC falsely claims this projected 1.5 degrees C temperature rise represents some critical temperature threshold point without realizing the Earth’s temperature anomaly has already risen by 4 degrees C since 1750 without alarming consequence with this data shown below based on Berkeley Earth global average temperature anomaly surface data as presented in a Climate Realism article exposing these latest IPCC flawed global temperature distorted and erroneous claims.

The Times further destroys the credibility of its editorial by making the following propaganda claim that is completely unsupported by any scientific measured data whatsoever while being contradicted by Berkeley Earth’s global temperature anomaly data going back to 1750.

“Though 1.5 degrees of warming would be horrible enough, every fraction of a degree we go beyond that would mean greater human suffering and environmental destruction.”

The Times Editorial staff simply regurgitates the politically contrived and flawed IPCC scientifically unsupported 1.5 degree C climate alarmism propaganda as exposed in the Climate Realism analysis.     

The Times editorial ignores and conceals EPA and NOAA climate measurement data that completely contradicts and undermines its lack of climate expertise regarding its assessment of approaching doom. A few examples of this data are noted in the items below.

The latest global temperature anomaly data show NOAA global temperature anomaly measurements over the last 7+ years are declining (at a rate of -1.3 degrees C per century) even though climate alarmists falsely proclaimed a science unsupported climate “emergency” in year 2016.

Additionally, the Times conceals and ignores the fact that all global temperature anomaly measurement systems including the land-based systems of NOAA (with data shown above), NASA GISS data, HadCRUT UK data as well as satellite measurement systems RSS data and UAH data all show declining 7+ year global temperature anomaly trends since 2016 despite the politically declared climate “emergency.”  

The UAH satellite data is shown below showing a declining trend of -2.49 degrees C per century since 2016 and no correlation with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

The Times editorial ignores long standing EPA data through year 2021 showing no increasing U.S. heat wave trends since the 1930s with no recent upward heat wave trends portending approaching doom as well as EPA data showing no pattern of increasing drought trends across the 48 contiguous states since 1895 as shown below. 

Additionally, the Times ignores NOAA average temperature anomaly measurement data across the continental US showing no recent increasing temperature anomaly trends portending their flawed claim of  approaching “greater human suffering and environmental destruction.”

The Times ignores the extensive year 2022 latest updated NOAA sea level rise data showing no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise at U.S. coastal locations that has been falsely threatened by climate alarmists during the past 4 decades with grossly failed predictions starting at the Democrats climate alarmist Senate hearings in 1988 which have been conveniently concealed and ignored by the Times. 

The data for the New York City Battery Station which has the longest measured time interval for U.S stations at 166 years is shown below with a consistent rate of 0.95 feet (11.4 inches) per century.

Shown below the NOAA data are photos of probably the most photographed icon in the U.S. the Statue of Liberty with the photo on the left taken in 1898 and on the right in 2022 (taken on a recent trip) indicating that little has changed regarding sea level rise in the last 124 years between these photos as expected based on NOAA’s meticulously measured scientific coastal sea level rise measured data.

In the Southern California area NOAA’s Sea level rise data for San Diego represents the longest recorded record at 116 years with a consistent sea level rise rate of 0.73 feet (8.76 inches per century) per century. NOAA’s U.S. coastal sea level rise data records simply do not support climate alarmists claims of sea level rise acceleration at these locations and completely contradict the flawed and failed claims of sea level rise acceleration by climate alarmists during the last 4 decades.

Nor is there any evidence of increasing trends for frequency or strengthening of global hurricanes based on NOAA’s hurricane data measurements as shown below from 1980 with this outcome concealed and grossly misrepresented by incompetent climate alarmist media.

Also there no increase in the frequency and intensity of tornadoes in the U.S. as noted in the NOAA data shown below.

None of the above as well extensive additional measured EPA and NOAA climate science measurement data provides justification or support regarding the L A Times climate alarmists propaganda statements portending “greater human suffering and environmental destruction” as hyped in their flawed editorial.

Based on the flawed and distorted IPCC 1.5 degree C temperature propaganda claims the Times urges the following local action that it regards as needed to address the latest IPCC climate alarmist update as:

“From local government to heads of state, officials at all levels should exercise whatever authority they have to dismantle the dangerous machinery of fossil fuels and replace it quickly with clean, renewable energy. Whether it’s accelerating the end of gas-fired plants, oil drilling and internal-combustion cars, or clearing the way for vehicle electrification and wind and solar energy production and transmission, there are thousands of opportunities to avoid the very worst possibilities for our future.”

Given the ongoing global emissions increases as noted above in Figure 1 it seems appropriate that before following the Times misguided and misleading suggestions and taking action based on flawed UN IPCC climate claims by having “local government to heads of state, officials at all levels should exercise whatever authority they have to dismantle the dangerous machinery of fossil fuels” that more complete analysis of global energy and emission is warranted.

The Times suggested actions will inflict totally unnecessary and hugely damaging high costs and unreliable energy supply on their constituents. Given this outcome a much more detailed look is appropriate to determine what is really happening to the world regarding energy use and emissions.

As explained in detail below the L A Times greatest errors in their editorial are that they concealed and ignored extraordinarily important information regarding who are the major global nations and regions that are driving the upward increasing global energy use and emissions trends that the Times believes must be curtailed to alleviate its contrived claim of future “human suffering and environmental destruction.” 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) last year issued a report showing that year 2021 global CO2 emissions had rebounded to their highest levels (Figure 1 in the first graph) and blamed increased coal (the dirtiest energy fuel with the very highest emissions per unit of consumed energy) use as the main driving factor for the increase as highlighted in their report.

Coal is dominant in driving China’s energy use as well as the energy use of all the nations that make up the developing nations identified as the non-OECD nations as established by the latest energy and emissions data contained in the BP year 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy which has links available (as shown below) that provide extraordinary detail regarding world energy use and emissions over the period from 1965-2021.

The BP report establishes that in year 2021 China consumed over 53% of all global coal energy use (86.17 exajoules vs 160.10 exajoules) and uses more coal than all other nations of the world combined. 

Additionally, coal accounted for over 54% China’s total year 2021 total energy use mix (86.17 exajoules versus 157.65 exajoules) with China’s use of coal having climbed by over 55% since (86.17 exajoules versus 55.46 exajoules) 2005.

China’s energy use alone in year 2021 exceeds the energy use of the U.S., EU and UK combined and represents 26.49% of all global energy use which is by far the largest of any global nation

China has achieved this level of energy consumption by hugely increasing its use of coal fuel from 2005 to 2021 by over 30 exajoules with that increase alone in year 2021 energy use being 12.6% greater than the entire world’s energy provided by wind and solar in 2021

China’s growth in coal energy is larger than their increased use of both petroleum and natural gas combined during this same period.

The BP data shows that in year 2021 the worlds developing nations accounted for over 81% of all global energy (130.41 exajoules versus 160.10 exajoules) obtained from coal use.

The non-OECD (which includes China) nations growth in yearly coal energy between 2005 and 2021 increased by 48.32 exajoules with this increased 2021 coal energy being 77% larger than the entire world’s energy provided by wind and solar that year.

The IEA report shows that coal accounts for over 42% of all global year 2021 CO2 emissions by far the most of any energy fuel even though coal only represents about 27% of total global fuel (160.10 exajoules versus 595.15 exajoules) use.

The non-OECD nations that account for 61.37% of global energy use are also accountable for 66.67% of all global CO2 emissions. 

The higher level of 66.67% of all global emissions versus the non-OECD energy use of 61.37% of global energy is due to their very high use of coal fuel (the dirtiest of all fuels) by these nations relative to all other global nations.    

The U.S. use of coal accounted for only about 11% of its total year 2021 energy consumption (10.57 exajoules versus 92.97 exajoules) and in fact the U.S. has reduced coal energy use by over 53% since (10.57 exajoules versus 22.85 exajoules) 2005. 

These significant achievements are addressed In September 2020 the EIA released a report showing that the U.S. replaced coal fuel with higher efficiency, lower cost and lower emissions natural gas fuel with this change contributing the great majority (61.2%) of a cumulative 5.475 billion metric tons of reductions in CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2019. 

Yet even with this huge U.S. reduction in coal fuel and benefits of higher efficiency and lower emissions from natural gas Biden and the Democrats have bent over backwards to stop the production and use of natural gas (and thereby increasing its costs) in the U.S. 

The IEA published report provides data which clearly shows that China is the biggest driver by far of increasing global CO2 emissions as shown in the IEA graph below while the U.S., EU and Japan have been consistently reducing CO2 emissions for decades. 

 This critical information regarding the magnitude of China and the other non-OECD nation’s huge role in increasing global coal use and dominating global emissions increases is unaddressed and concealed by the Times.

The successful efforts of the U.S. to significantly reduce use of coal fuel with higher efficiency, lower emissions and lower cost natural gas which drove the huge U.S. emission reductions between 2005 and 2021 is concealed and ignored by the Times.

For years the L A Times has been publishing a paid insert called “China Watch” which includes among other areas highlights China’s efforts to build increased renewables and become a more “green” nation in achieving its energy consumption needs with an example article from a 2021 insert shown below.

This “insert” article addresses the growing use of wind energy by China but fails to indicate that in year 2021wind energy accounted for only 3.9% of China’s total energy use and only 2.28% of the non-OECD nations total energy use. U.S. use of wind energy in 2021 was about 3.9%. 

These L A Times China “inserts” avoid mention of the China’s enormous use and growth of fossil fuels driven most of all by coal fuel nor do they address the very large role China plays in assisting the financing, building and operation of coal plants for other Asian nations noted in the article below. Despite the articles statement below that “coal is falling out of favor” the BP global energy data as evaluated and discussed in the bold type items noted above clearly show the ever-growing use of coal fuel by China and the other non-OECD nations is continuing.

In its editorial the Times ignores and conceals the staggering magnitude of China and the other non-OECD nations dominance in controlling energy use and emissions to such a degree that it is impossible for the OECD nations to control or overcome. The Times only statement in its editorial about this critical issue is a disguised and highly muted comment being:

China has been permitting new coal-fired power plants at a staggering rate of two per week.”

Nowhere does the Times editorial provide the facts that China and the non-OECD nations dominate global energy by controlling 61.37% of all global energy use or that these nations also dominate global CO2 emissions by producing 66.67% of all global CO2 emissions in 2021.   

Nowhere does the Times editorial address the critical information that between 2005 and 2021 China and the non-OECD nations increased CO2 emissions by +8.062 billion metric tons while the U.S. and other OECD nations reduced CO2 emissions by -2.321 billion metric tons resulting in world CO2 emissions increasing by +5.74 billion metric tons during this period.

Nowhere does the Times discuss the fact that the U.S. accounted for more than half of the total OECD emissions reductions from 2005 through 2021 and that the majority of the U.S. reductions were achieved by using natural gas to replace coal fueled power plants. 

Nowhere does the Times editorial address the facts that the non-OECD nations increased their energy use by 66.7% between 2005 and 2021 and that the OECD nations decreased energy use in this same period by -4.3% clearly showing that the non-OECD nations will dominate future energy growth and emissions by even greater margins than existed in 2021. 

Instead, the Times conceals these critical issues by offering the underwhelming statement about China “permitting new coal-fired plants” while completely concealing China and the non-OECD already existing massive growth and dominance in both global energy use and emissions with that dominance to further increase in the future.     

The issues of global energy and emissions that need to be clearly identified and presented for fully open and complete discussions in addressing U.S. and global energy policy actions and decisions that have been ignored and concealed by the Times are further addressed below.    

Table 1 below provides data listed in rank order of world region largest percent of total global energy use with the percent of each world regions energy use obtained from both wind and solar (that represent about 70% of all renewable energy) as listed in the BP Statistical Analysis Report of 2022.

Wind and solar provided only 4.58% of total global energy use in year 2021 after decades of global government mandated use of these costly and unreliable energy resources including the use of trillions of dollars in huge global government driven subsidies. Germany alone has spent at least $800 billion euros on its failed green energy transition campaign. 

The dominant global energy use non-OECD nations (representing 61.37% of total year 2021 global energy use and 66.67% of total global emissions) utilized less wind and solar energy (only 13.14 exajoules) compared to the OECD nations (representing only 38.63% of total year 2021 global total energy) with wind and solar use at just 14.13 exajoules.

In 2021 non-OECD nations used 60% more total energy than the OECD nations but used less wind and solar than OECD. This outcome shows that non-OECD nations clearly lack government mandates and priorities for wind and solar energy.

Reliable and cost-effective fossil fuel energy resources including coal, petroleum and natural gas continued to provide the great majority of world (82.28% in year 2021) and all world regional energy use requirements as presented in the Table 2 below based on the BP year 2021 world energy use statistical analysis. 

Note the non-OECD nations globally dominated 85.34% of fossil fuel use to achieve their year 2021 energy needs. Even globally insignificant and climate alarmist renewable energy mandate focused California used fossil fuels for 70% of its total energy use in year 2020. 

Fossil fuels in year 2021 provided the world with 18 times greater energy than did wind and solar (489.66 exajoules versus 27.27 exajoules) after decades of OECD global government mandates requiring use of costly and unreliable wind and solar even with trillions in global government driven subsidies and mandates.

Table 3 below presents data on World, Selected World Regions, Country, and California showing total energy use for the years 2005 and 2021 with the energy use growth percent from 2005 to 2021 also provided.

The OECD nations (which accounted for only 38.63% of total global energy use in 2021) led by the U.S. and EU experienced energy use declines between the period 2005 and 2021with these nations shrinking energy use by -4.3% during this period (as shown in Table 3). 

The globally dominant energy use non-OECD nations (which accounted for 61.37% of total global energy use in 2021) increased their energy use by +66.7% during this same time period.    

This BP energy data establishes that the non-OECD nations are by far the world’s largest and fastest growing energy users with these nations now completely dominating total global energy, growth, and fuel use both present and future outcomes

The non-OECD nations increased fossil fuel use by 113.94 exajoules (311.73 exajoules in 2021 versus 197.79 exajoules in 2005) in the period from 2005 to 2021 with this increased use of fossil fuels being 435% times larger than the entire world’s increased use of wind and solar (27.27 exajoules in 2021 versus 1.08 exajoules in 2005) during year 2021. 

As demonstrated by decades of failed efforts the OECD nations cannot control future global energy, growth, fuel use and emissions outcomes as the BP year 2021 comprehensive global energy statistical analysis data clearly displays.

The Times article fails to identify or deal with any of these significant energy and emissions issues and yet expects the people of the U.S. to:

“From local government to heads of state, officials at all levels should exercise whatever authority they have to dismantle the dangerous machinery of fossil fuels and replace it quickly with clean, renewable energy. Whether it’s accelerating the end of gas-fired plants, oil drilling and internal-combustion cars, or clearing the way for vehicle electrification and wind and solar energy production and transmission, there are thousands of opportunities to avoid the very worst possibilities for our future.”

The Times article hypes the flawed UN 1.5 degree C claim as though this claim is definitive and certain which is not valid. It also asks the people of the U.S. to destroy the country’s energy viability and economy based on its climate alarmism propaganda that conceals and ignores critical and crucial energy and emissions global data. 

Repeating one of the major conclusions noted previously regarding this Times concealed data we note again:

“Nowhere does the Times editorial address the facts that the non-OECD nations increased their energy use by 66.7% between 2005 and 2021 and that the OECD nations decreased energy use in this same period by -4.3% clearly showing that the non-OECD nations will dominate future energy growth and emissions by even greater margins than existed in 2021.” 

4.9 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 30, 2023 10:51 pm

Balanced reporting is a fundamental facet of journalism. It has no place in propaganda.

Steve Case
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 30, 2023 11:18 pm

From yesterday’s Judith Curry post:

The entire framing of the IPCC Reports is now around the 
mitigation of climate change through emissions reductions.
The IPCC Reports have become a “bumper sticker” 

That goes for all of the Climate Change reporting in the so called main stream media. Orwell used sheep as the example when he wrote “Animal Farm”

Steve Case
March 30, 2023 10:57 pm

OECD? I had to look it up:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a unique forum where the governments of 37 democracies with market-based economies collaborate to develop policy standards to promote sustainable economic growth.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 31, 2023 4:48 pm

That is to increase their power over the rest of us nothing more.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 31, 2023 5:53 pm

with market-based economies 

All developed economies are highly dependent on energy. None of them have a market based economy with regard energy so could hardly be called market based economies. All governments have endorsed some form of theft from the poor to the wealthy by tilting the field strongly in favour of non fossil fuel energy generation.

There is no way that a free market would result in the current level of penetration of intermittent sources of generation. No sensible power grid operator, with a predominantly thermal powered grid, would permit connection of intermittent sources. There is potentially an economic case for intermittent sources in a perched water constrained hydro network.

Steve Case
March 30, 2023 11:03 pm

“The data for the New York City Battery Station which has the longest measured time interval for U.S stations at 166 years…”

Nit pick: The San Francisco tide gauge record is longer (by one year) and more complete than the New York Battery

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
March 30, 2023 11:42 pm

Besides that San Francisco has a lower rate of sea level rise 1.5 mm/yr vs the New York gauge at 2.9 mm/yr. Acceleration for both is the same essentially zero rate of 0.01 mm/yr²

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
March 31, 2023 10:23 am

People get their knickers in a knot over 1.5 mm/yr sea level rise, while the San Andreas Fault is creeping laterally at a rate of 25 to 50 mm/yr. When there are episodic earthquakes, every few hundred years, the horizontal offset (San Andreas, 1906) can be over 6,500 mm. Vertical offsets on other faults are commonly up to 500 mm per event. The earthquake and tsunami originating along the Japan Trench subduction zone, which caused the disaster in Fukushima, is thought to have been the result of a vertical displacement of 10,000 mm.

Perspective is often missing in the alarm about the supposed effects of global warming.

Reply to  Steve Case
March 31, 2023 10:24 am

Even weaker than your earlier 65 (actually 64, you counted one station twice) station check. There, you used over half northern European and Nordic stations that, together, have ~12% of the worlds seacoast. I can actually see why you did it. Most have longer records, so you simply looked for your car keys under the street lamp. But you could have both done well and better by opening up to stations that had enough post 1980 data – a statistically/physically significant time period that also captured the influence of modern forcings. If you had done that you would have found that in any randomly chosen group of 65 applicable stations:

  1. Over 2/3 would have statistically significant acceleration.
  2. Taken together, the projected 2023-2100 sea level increase would have been around 1 meter, with essentially no chance of their being none..
Steve Case
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 2, 2023 2:13 am
  1. Taken together, the projected 2023-2100 sea level increase would have been around 1 meter, with essentially no chance of their being none..


A meter by 2100 comes to an average of 13 mm/year starting right now. When is this going to begin to happen? Do you ever do the simple arithmetic before you post something that obviously isn’t probable?

Reply to  Steve Case
April 2, 2023 6:11 am

Do you ever do the simple arithmetic before you post something that obviously isn’t probable?”

Never said it was. We might take actions to prevent it. I was just doing the same evaluation, using non cherrypicked data, that many others have done.

BTW, good deflection from your station cherry picking and the use of a time period that does not describe the problem.

Chris Hanley
March 30, 2023 11:38 pm

What the LA Times editorial board thinks are GHGs is steam and no net addition to atmospheric GHGs.
The lignite power station pictured in Neurath Germany was closed in March 2022 but was started up again in September because of Germany’s ongoing energy crisis.

Steve Case
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 30, 2023 11:50 pm

“The lignite power station pictured in Neurath Germany was closed in March 2022 but was started up again in September because of Germany’s ongoing energy crisis.”

Closed because of the claimed “Climate Crisis”

The lunatics are most certainly in charge of the asylum.

March 31, 2023 12:03 am

Good refernes and largely good rebuttal.
But 7 years is nowhere near long enough to determine any sort of climate trend.

Steve Case
Reply to  MCourtney
March 31, 2023 12:39 am

“But 7 years is nowhere near long enough to determine any sort of climate trend”

When you know you have strong arguments, don’t throw up weak ones.

March 31, 2023 12:40 am

All the climate change cultists have convinced themselves (due to their lack of historical knowledge) that before 1950 the world was a place where weather was benign, bad things never happened, or if they did it was extremely rare and almost unheard of.

We live in an age of utter delusion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alpha
March 31, 2023 10:26 am

Should we blame that on our educational system? Or, is the fault with the ‘news’ media that doesn’t take the time to research articles or do investigative journalism?

George Daddis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 1, 2023 6:31 am


(One only supports the other.)

Paul S
Reply to  Alpha
March 31, 2023 11:40 am

“We live in an age of utter delusion”

I wish it was that benign. In reality, we are living in an age where the forces of the WEF, George Soros and useful idiots are deliberately transforming the world via Covid lies, fake climate alarmism, forced transgenderism, ruination of our economies to “fix” climate change in order to destroy western society to implement communism and rule by the UN elite.

Peta of Newark
March 31, 2023 2:14 am

Completely irrational fear and blind-panic rooted in the conviction that: “Everybody is out to hurt me” (or at least folks not in My Tribe/Consensus)
Based on Kindergarten Science: = a tiny nugget of information so oversimplified and exaggerated as to have become the definition of wrongness.

Like an alcohol-fuelled gang on a rampage, there is nothing anyone can say or do to stop them. They either run out of steam, sober up or do something to hurt themselves.
But, The Thing has anaesthetised them, they’re incapable of feeling pain (self-inflicted pain as classic drunks are) and even if they do, they’ll pass the buck without a 2nd thought.
i.e. Blame somebody else (Exxon not least) and demand/expect compensation.
e.g. The radiant & lovely Ms Floggalot from Switzerland that we learned about recently

OK, yanking individuals out of the mob and taking them to rehab would and classically did help, but how to do that now when there is no escape? The entire English-speaking and Caucasian world is affected. ##
The headless chickens (in LA as we read here also at the BBC not least) have taken total control over Government and media. The propaganda is inescapable and even if you did ‘simply switch it off‘ they effectively switch you off via taxes/regulations/controls

## Doesn’t that just open a door to some serious investigation.
I’d assert by the Department of Food & Nutrition but that angle is covered already by another branch of Junk Science, namely Modern Medicine
Contemporary doctors, again with backup from Gov and Media, have convinced themselves that if you eat a wide variety of different ‘stuff’ you will be getting a ‘Balanced Diet‘ and thus be = Healthy.
That’s bollox to start with, no other critter on this Earth eats our definition of ‘a balanced diet’ so why should we.
While each individual exercising their freedom-of-choice, can determine just what that ‘balance’ is and then, when caught cheating (e.g seen to be obviously overweight), simply lie about what they eat and blame their parents for giving them Bad Genes. Charming. Ugly.
If the accusing doctor persists, the affected person will simply shop around for another doctor who does swallow their lies and agree with them.
i.e. That fat stupid lazy demented and mendacious is ‘normal’

Assertion: ‘Something’ is wrong with what we eat and Caucasians are uniquely susceptible.
Gotta be careful there tho, what will the mob do if you’re seen to be doing anything even vaguely ‘racist’ (See how the mob protects itself, they’ve got all the angles covered)

March 31, 2023 3:22 am

This article is very good.
It included two of the three important points I look for in any climate article, which is better than most articles. These three points are the best ammunition for refuting CAGW scaremongering. They should be taken to every climate debate, and never left at home.

(1) No global warming in past eight years

(2) Examples of climate predictions that were wrong. illustrated with charts, often charts from the same government sources that make false predictions of climate doom, contradicting themselves.

(3) Missing was discussion of the false claim that one degree warmer than today would be bad news, when it would actually be good news:

The Holocene Climate Optimum.
Optimum meant the climate was wonderful. Even the leftist poltics IPCC “science” organization admits the average temperature was higher 5,000 to 9,000 years ago.

If one degree C. warmer than today in the past was a CLIMATE OPTIMUM (good news)

Then how could one degree C. warmer than today in the future be a CLIMATE EMERGENCY (bad news)?

You know the answer:
The coming climate emergency is a hoax. Based on the leftist political strategy of creating fear. Not based on facts, data, logic and common sense (science)

.Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Tom Halla
March 31, 2023 4:47 am

Climate change hysteria is Democratic Party dogma, with as little need for evidence as any other religious doctrine. As the Los Angeles Times are good little Democrats, reciting their catechism should be expected.

Tom Abbott
March 31, 2023 4:47 am

This is a very good article. It shoots down all the climate change alarmist memes, using actual data. You could use this article as a reference.

The only climate change alarmist meme not shot down in this article is the bastardized “hotter and hotter” global surface temperature record, where the Early Twentieth Century has been artificially cooled to insignficance in a computer, in order to make it appear that we are experiencing unprecedented warmth today, caused by CO2.

This is the BIG LIE. The BIG LIE that all of alarmist climate change science hangs its hat on.

The truth is it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and that means CO2 is at best a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere, being unable to increase the temperatures above what was experienced in the Early Twentieth Century, even though there is much more CO2 in the air now than then. Much more CO2 in the air now than in the past, but it’s cooler now than in the Early Twentieth Century.

No correlation between CO2 amounts and temperature.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 31, 2023 7:08 am

I’ll state the physical evidence for early 20th warming again. The open season at the coalport in Spitsbergen (Svalbard) went from two months of the year before 1920 to over seven months of the year in the late 1930s. Proof positive of considerable warming in the Arctic. Hubert Lamb reckoned Arctic ice declined between 10% – 20% over the period.

Many posts ago I asked BDGWX (?) what he thought caused that warming. His reply “I don’t know” but he didn’t seem to want to investigate any further.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Dave Andrews
March 31, 2023 11:59 pm

 “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

March 31, 2023 5:36 am

They’re cementing crony green capitalism and fake jobs-
UK energy strategy casts doubt on Drax’s carbon capture project (msn.com)

John Oliver
March 31, 2023 7:10 am

First of all the left’s journalist don’t care about facts , the scientific method or well conceived realist public policy. What do journalist think about? What article they can right that gets the most emotional response possible from the useful idiot readership. And of course underlying it all is their arrogant political position. Study the 1930s because it is repeating right now. Take your best well honed arguments and look for segways (segue) when conversing with friends family neighbors to discuss all these issues. Nobody else is going to do it.

CD in Wisconsin
March 31, 2023 8:47 am

“These UN IPCC climate report “updates” have been ongoing for the last 30+ years with each of these alarming “update” climate agreement proposed schemes having no meaningful impact on reducing global emissions……..”

Recall again Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. And this applies to the U.N. (especially the IPCC) and the mass media.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights