France Too Needs to CLEXIT the Paris Climate Agreement

by Bernard Beauzamy

Chairman and CEO
August 6th, 2018

Global Warming has more or less disappeared from international preoccupations, since Donald Trump was elected as President of the US: he withdrew from the Paris agreements, signed after COP21, and after that, a large majority of countries declared “just forget everything”. CO2 emissions keep increasing, both in industrial countries and in countries under development, coal is back everywhere, including in Germany.

In the US, even the theory of global warming has been criticized: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was subject to a subpoena from the US Senate, asking them to work correctly, publish their data and arguments. We do not know if they complied: when people are not used to such habits, it is hard to adopt them.

In France, conversely, nobody took into account the changes in the US and there was no official question about the IPCC’s orientations: the theory of “Global Warming” is still accepted by our governments and by our media. The “Carbon Tax” is one of the key measures proposed by Emmanuel Macron as a presidential candidate, and the French Minister of Environment, Nicolas Hulot (a former journalist) still continues with his “energy transition” (which means, for him, abandon nuclear and develop solar and wind). In France, a vast majority of young people is now convinced that CO2 is a poison! Clearly, the “Paris Agreement” has been detrimental for France, not only economically, but scientifically speaking.

This state of things is not satisfactory to me; I should now take opportunity of this political quietness to develop a more rational approach to these questions.

The first methodological mistake, made by IPCC and by NOAA, is to ask for a “global” temperature, which does not make sense. Let us recall briefly that a temperature describes the movement of molecules; one cannot make the average between the temperature of one km3 of air, land, water, because they do not have the same mass per unit of volume. So, what we need is local measurements, starting as early as possible: we will see if, at some places, temperatures really increase. Such measurements often do exist, for 100 years and more, in US and in Europe. We need to publish the data as they are (and not under the form of “anomalies” with respect to a given year, as we see today).

SCM has done this work for a dozen of countries, six to ten stations in each. See

The data do not show any warming at all. This work has to be extended to more countries and updated every year.

Two years later, we do not wish to modify the conclusions of our “White Paper”, published in 2015-2016,

“SCM conclusions about global warming are very simple and derive from all the studies we performed: at all places, at all times, the Earth’s climate has been changing, and there is absolutely no fact which might indicate that the present variations are more significant than in the past. Conversely, when measurements exist, they show that these variations are more modest than in the past (example: see level: increase of 1 mm per year today, several centimeters per year 20 000 years ago).”

The second task we might perform if people leave us a little peace of mind is the update of factual data. During many years, we have been subject to a constant flow of contradictory information: the ice at the poles melt/do not melt, polar bears are disappearing/increasing, and so on. The natural variability of phenomena is totally ignored by ecologists: when they see something, no matter what it is, they do not enquire about the past, they immediately declare that this is wrong and human responsibility.

We leave the conclusion to Roger Vercel, a French writer, 1938, in his book:

“A l’assaut des Pôles” (conquest of the poles) :

“Precisely, something extraordinary is happening. At the same time as the French Empire disappears, many icefields broke down and disappeared. During the years 1816 and 1817, icebergs drift, as far as the 40th parallel, at the latitude of Toledo and Napoli! Some icebergs, height 60m, are seen everywhere in the Atlantic: these are pieces of the icefields which were around the North Pole. And William Scoresby, a well-known English captain for whale hunting, writes to Sir Joseph Banks, one of Cook’s companions and himself polar explorer, that, for two years, he has not seen any ice on the coasts of Greenland, between the 74th and 75th degree of latitude. Such an opportunity to reach the Pole, along the Greenland coast, might not happen again so soon”.

We wonder with great satisfaction, in France nowadays, what would be the reaction of the media and of the politicians if anyone could see an iceberg near Portugal! Our “sustainable development”, national cause, would be declared in danger. Hot baths would be limited to one every three months; cars would be replaced by horses.

Where the 19th century saw conquest opportunities, our century sees a danger.

Bernard Beauzamy

Siège social et bureaux : 111, Faubourg Saint Honoré, 75008 Paris. Tel : 01 42 89 10 89. Fax : 01 42 89 10 69.
Société Anonyme au capital de 56 200 Euros. RCS : Paris B 399 991 041. SIRET : 399 991 041 00035. APE : 7219Z

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *