Open Letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23, Frank Bainimarama
Nils-Axel Mörner and Pamela Matlack-Klein
The community assembled at the COP23 meeting in Bonn badly wants temperature to rise according to models proposed (but never verified, rather seriously contradicted) and sea level changes that may pose serious flooding threats to low lying coasts provided sea level would suddenly start to rise at rates never recorded before (which would violate physical laws as well as accumulated scientific knowledge over centuries).
We have been in your lovely country and undertaken a detailed sea level analysis, which beyond doubts indicates that sea level is not at all in a rising mode, but has remained perfectly stable over the last 50-70 years. Hence all threats of an approaching general sea level flooding is totally unfounded.
Whatever economy, politics and project agendas may want to put in the centre, the true scientific community must insist that only facts as revealed in nature itself and in laboratory experiments can provide trustworthy results.
These are the facts:
- Sea level has remained virtually at the present level over the last 200 years
- In the last 50-70 years sea level has remained perfectly stable in Fiji
- This stability is indicated by the growth of corals (stopped to grow vertically, and forced to grow laterally into microatolls) – and corals do not lie
Full letter, including images and chart: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/open-letter-to-frank-bainimarama-president-of-cop23.pdf [PDF, 5 MB]
Questions for Jacinda [Ardern, leader of New Zealand’s Labour Party], the Greens and any other political zealots talking about reduction of “carbon” emissions, by which I guess they mean the trace gas carbon dioxide (CO2) that currently, at 400 ppm represents 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere from all sources, natural and human-induced.
How do they propose to deal with (a) human emissions of CO2 when each of us exhale, estimated at around an average of 1 kg per day; (b), emissions from volcanoes both above and below the oceans: (c), emissions from sedimentary basins; the combination of which of which greatly exceed CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels in our cars and elsewhere, and from flatulent animals?
And what allowance will they make for the extent to which CO2 as nature’s fertiliser has greened the Earth by an observed 14% since 1979 when satellites gave us the ability to see and measure such changes. For New Zealand alone, an increase of 300 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere is estimated to increase our pasture production by some 30 per cent, and raise our pastoral sector earnings from their current $28 billion by $8 billion, without taking into account similar productivity gains in horticulture and viticulture.
While they’re at at, will one of them quote just one scientific paper, prepared in the recognised scientific method that proves that emissions of CO2 can or do cause variations in the global climate beyond the range of historically recorded observations. No one, anywhere in the world has yet done so.
Terry Dunleavy MBE
Hauraki, North Shore
By Jim Rust.
Many climate alarmists claim 97 percent or more climate scientists state carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. I tell them it is not worth discussing this issue. Anyone can create useless statistics to support their arguments. Simply interview people who agree with you.
If you go back to the 1600s, I could say 100 percent of scientists said the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei dissented from this theory and was tried for heresy by the Catholic Church. In order to save his life, on June 22, 1633, Galileo Galilei recanted his published theory that stated the sun was the center of the world and the earth was not. Galileo lived in house arrest the rest of his life.
This shows the argument of force using claims of majority thinking are worthless and should not be used in debates about global warming (climate change). Similarly, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein quotes from BrainyQuote.com.
James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering (ret. Georgia Tech) and policy advisor The Heartland Institute
Last Thursday, President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord, which the Obama administration initially agreed to in 2015. Environmental activists are lambasting his decision, but should they?
In his new book, Clexit for a Brighter Future: The Case for Withdrawing from the United Nations’ Climate Treaties, energy expert Donn Dears explains why the answer is a resounding “No!”
The purpose of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to “achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Dears describes the impossibility of cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow or stop climate change.
The international environmental left is living in a fantasy world, and the United States should leave them there by withdrawing from the UNFCCC, a 1992 treaty with a clear “clexit” clause. The treaty was based on the theory that human emissions of CO2 cause global warming. Since that theory falls apart under scrutiny, Dears concludes, “The UNFCCC treaty is, essentially, a fraud.”
Clexit, a follow-up to Dears’ Nothing to Fear, succinctly and systematically explains, with ample facts and sound logic, why participating in a failed treaty is immoral and economically disastrous.
From Paul K. Driessen and Mark J. Carr.
Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris
Are you are still wondering whether to Exit Paris? Overseas and US officials, environmentalists and bureaucrats urge you to Remain. But you promised voters you would Exit. Please keep your promises.
Exit Paris isn’t about the environment. It’s about letting us utilize our fossil fuel energy to create jobs, rebuild our economy, and Make America Great Again. It’s about avoiding immense transfer payments from the USA to foreign governments, bureaucrats and parties unaccountable to Trump-voting taxpayers.
Worse, even if the USA Remains, and the repulsive payments flow, Paris offers no help in removing real air pollutants. Carbon dioxide isn’t one of them, by the way: it’s plant food, not poison.
Exit Paris: Business
Some high profile American companies recently signed a note urging Remain. Follow the money. Many leaders of those companies didn’t support your election and voted Hillary. And they expect to get billions from us taxpayers and consumers, for locking up our fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy.
We who voted Trump, your base, want Exit. Just as you promised.
Remain, so that we maintain markets for American energy technologies? Some companies will make off like bandits. The rest of us will get skewered. Global buyers of energy systems understand the benefits of America’s world-beating fossil technologies. They understand the life-cycle value of after-sales support poorly delivered by our international competitors. Trust Chinese warranties? We don’t either.
Continue reading “Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris”
May 25, 2017 by CFACT
Twenty-two Republican Senators sent a letter to President Trump today calling on him to withdraw from the UN Paris climate agreement.
Read the full letter. [PDF]
The Senators warn that, “Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”
“Leading environmental attorneys have been candid that they intend to use the Paris Agreement and the existing endangerment finding to force EPA to regulate under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act.”
Today the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a prohibition on the President’s ban on travel from nations he considers terrorist risks. The federal judiciary has proven its willingness to thwart the President’s executive authority with a heavy hand.
Making a “clean break” from the Paris Agreement is the sure-fire way to prevent the courts from doing the same to thwart the President’s energy policy.
By William Happer
The United States should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. For too long, well-meaning policymakers have been misled by propaganda, masquerading as science, that more atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will harm the planet. Paris represents the culmination of this campaign. The pact extends into perpetuity, its very terms dispensing with the value of the supposedly previous “seat at the table.” For this and many other reasons, the time to withdraw is now.
Real pollutants from fossil fuel combustion, such as oxides of sulfur, nitrogen and fly ash, are rightly controlled, and by cost-effective technology. But more CO2 is not a pollutant but is a benefit to humanity. The “social cost of carbon,” aka CO2, is negative. It is immoral to prevent developing countries from using reliable, inexpensive fossil fuels to escape centuries of poverty.
Most developing countries have offered no plans to limit CO2 emissions any time soon, rhetoric about Paris’ universal inclusivity notwithstanding. Without their cooperation, stabilizing atmospheric levels of CO2 is not possible, nor would this stop climate change if it could be done. Climate has been changing since the Earth was formed — some 4.5 billion years ago — according to geological evidence. Climate changes on every time scale — decades, centuries, millennia and even longer periods.
Continue reading “The Case for Nixing the Paris Agreement”
By Viv Forbes, Secretary of the Clexit Coalition
The Clexit Coalition today called on President Trump to keep his election promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty and stop US payments to all UN global warming programs.
The Clexit (ClimateExit) Coalition, comprising over 175 representatives from 25 countries, aims to prevent ratification or local enforcement of the UN Paris climate treaty.
The Secretary of Clexit, Mr Viv Forbes of Australia, said that all nations will suffer from the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels and the backbone industries that rely on them – mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing and manufacturing.
Continue reading “Kill the Paris Treaty and Rip Out the Roots”
Clexit Members are presenting sceptical papers at the Marrakech Climate Carnival.
“Attempts to verify the greenhouse effect by Experiments” by Jan-Eric Solheim of Norway.
“Reconsidering the Role of Livestock and Agriculture in Clmate Change” by Dr Albrecht Galtzle of Paraguay.
“Reconsidering Solar forcing, Climate Change and Sea Level Rise” by Nils-Alex Morner, of Sweden.
More details: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/marrakech-papers-by-clexit-members.pdf [PDF, 75 KB]
By Viv Forbes, Albrecht Glatzle and others
Grasslands and arable land cover just 10% of Earth’s surface but (with the oceans) they produce all of our food and fibre. But the productivity and health of our grasslands, farms and livestock are under threat from global warming alarmists and green preservationists.
We are afflicted by climate crazies and methane madness. It is poor public policy that condones restrictions on grazing operations, or taxes on grazing animals, based on disputed theories that claim that bodily emissions from farm animals will cause dangerous global warming.
New Zealand was the first cattle country to propose a “livestock fart tax”. Four hundred farmers then drove 20 tractors to the Parliament in Wellington waving placards and banners saying “STOP THE FART TAX”. The proposal was laughed out of Parliament. But the war on farmers and livestock continues.
Permission is given to reproduce this cartoon providing the source (www.clexit.net) is credited.
Continue reading “The Battle for our Grasslands and Livestock”