Mark Morano talks about the brave new green world that is on its way.
OCTOBER 5, 2018 – More than 100 leading scholars from 12 countries have issued a report contending “the global war on fossil fuels … was never founded on sound science or economics” and urging the world’s policymakers to “acknowledge this truth and end that war.”
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an independent organization founded in 2003 to fact-check the work of the United Nations on the issue of climate change, today released the Summary for Policymakers [PDF] of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels. The 27-page Summary provides an early look at a 1,000-page report expected to be released on December 4 at a climate science symposium during the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP-24) in Katowice, Poland.
In the new NIPCC report, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts address and refute the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertions that the impacts of climate change on human well-being and the natural environment justify dramatic reductions in the use of fossil fuels. The Summary provides more than 100 references to peer-reviewed literature, while the full report provides nearly 3,000 such references.
Click here to read the Summary for Policymakers report in digital form (PDF).
The Bolin-Palme treason against Science, the IPCC and Paris illusions and a Clexit solution
By Nils-Axel Mörner
President of the Independent Committee on Geoethics Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005)
Real science advances via questioning and accumulation of new observational facts. Far back in time, we left dogmatism behind. If Earth’s evolution goes forward via gradualism and catastrophism, science per se, rather advances via sudden new concepts (individual “aha” or “eureka” experiences), observational facts or experiment results. It follows the path: observation – interpretation – conclusion. In the modern new media world, fake news and falsified science may spread rapidly. This is utilized by lobbyist. The boundary between realism and falsified “facts” (fake news) becomes invisible.
It all goes back to the early 70s. The Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin proposed the cause-and-consequence chain of increased CO2, increasing global temperature, melting glaciers and rising sea level. In 1973, the first fuel crisis happened. Olof Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister and old school friend to Bolin immediately saw new possibilities in a strong argument for leaving oil dependence and rapidly building up our nuclear power industry (“if we in 1990 do not have at least 24 nuclear power plants, it will not survive as an industrial nation”). Already in 1975, the fear of a future increase in atmospheric CO2 content was stated in the Swedish governmental declaration.
Palme realized that he would not be able to control science, so he proposed the establishment of a new intergovernmental body within the United Nation to handle the question. Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland grasped the message, and put it in focus in the Brundtland Report of 1988. IPCC was born and Bolin became its first chairman with a basic mission: “to document the anthropogenic global warming”; i.e. the goal was set before the project started. The Sun was purposely left outside “because this is a project in meteorology and oceanography”, he said.
Read the full document: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/clexit-2018-morner.pdf [PDF, 2 MB]
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.
Continue reading “France Too Needs to CLEXIT the Paris Climate Agreement”
Graham Williamson, Sydney, Australia
Controlling Climate and Global Wealth Redistribution – a costly agenda indeed!
2015 was a very big year for the global problem solvers at the UN. In September Australia’s former Foreign minister, Julie Bishop, signed the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals agenda, and in December the UN conducted the Paris climate change conference, which was later signed by Australia’s Environment Minister, Greg Hunt. Earlier, in July the same year, Australia participated in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda to discuss ways of financing the UN’s exceedingly costly agenda.
The first part of this agenda, namely, controlling the climate, is extremely costly in itself, and the folks at the UN tell us they need much more of our money to turn down the heat. But they also need more of our money to pay the ‘climate debt’ to compensate socialist and theocratic countries, which seem to be selectively targeted by our ‘damaging’ CO2 emissions, or so the story goes.
However, the really big dollars are needed to implement Julie Bishop’s 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. For this agenda the UN needs a further $6 trillion annually so we can all be compelled to manage our properties and lifestyles correctly and meet the UN’s ‘sustainability’ requirements. And under SDG 4.7 the UN seeks to teach our children, through global citizenship education, that only the UN can ‘solve’ problems which the UN defines as ‘global’ problems. So called ‘climate change’ is ‘global problem’ SDG 13. The $6 trillion figure is expected to blow out considerably as fixing the climate and ensuring the sustainability of the earth, and educating children to believe all this, is a costly business indeed. No wonder virtually all government departments are devoted to helping the UN. Continue reading “FROM CLEXIT TO UNEXIT”
by Bob Beatty, Brisbane, Australia
Australia should CLEXIT the Paris accord while the opportunity is still open to us. It is an evil attempt to coerce a free people into an undemocratic collective, otherwise described as a World Government.
Nothing could be better designed to result in widespread anarchy than this proposal. The United Nations must be widely condemned for instigating such a dangerous waste of scarce human resources.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”
Never has this old idiom been more appropriate than when applied to the fake science of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The AGW doctrine can only lead to a dangerously weak Australian economy. Australia should support US leadership in this regard, and leave the “Paris Accord” as a matter of urgency, before it does more to undermine our natural energy and pastoral advantages.
“Forests of Wind Turbines are giving useful Wind Power a Bad Name.”
One of the insidious side effects of this AGW scam is the building of inefficient, intrusive wind turbines across wide areas of our land. These blights on the landscape (which produce intermittent unreliable power) give wind power a bad name. As a result, we may eventually “throw the baby out with the bath water”.
It should be remembered that wind power pumped the North Sea out of the Netherlands, it pumps bore water at remote sites, and it powered the ships that discovered and settled Australia.
Technical advances in wind sail technology have provided craft competing in the America’s Cup which travel at speeds up to 2.2 times faster than the wind.
Other wind inspired technology development with which I have been associated, shows wind can be used to drought proof large inland regions, and provide despatchable electric power. See https://principia-scientific.org/wind-into-wine/
The conclusion we can draw from these experiences is that wind associated with water can be a very beneficial association, but wind imposed on Australian base load power supplies is a hugely destructive exercise which can only be justified with large publicly funded subsidies. These policies are a direct result of our “Paris/UN” inspired political collaboration which we must effectively exit as a matter of urgency.
by Roger Tattersall
Roger is a founding member of Clexit: https://clexit.net/about/
He also runs the astrophysics, climate science and energy policy blog: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com.
He is very active in the Brexit campaign. http://leavemeansleave.eu
The UK’s political class is being dragged reluctantly towards taking Britain out the EU as the majority of the electorate instructed them to do in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
People power is also asserting itself on climate policy as voters wake up to the facts:
- So-called “renewable energy” is expensive and unreliable.
- Carbon taxes are unpopular and damage economies.
- The largest countries such as the USA, China, India and Russia are not committing to significant real emissions reduction.
- There is no convincing evidence that reducing emissions will make a measurable reduction to global surface temperature (even if that was a worthwhile goal).
Researcher Bjorn Lomborg recently published a paper in which he estimates that even using the IPCC’s own inflated formulas that relate global temperatures to atmospheric CO2, economy-crippling reductions in emissions might reduce surface temperature by an unmeasurable 0.02o C to 0.05o C by the year 2100. Meanwhile these emission-reduction rules are killing the economy and inflating electricity prices. Plain common sense tells us that these policies are wasting resources and money.
Moreover, the science is not settled. At the recent Porto Climate Conference, presentations were made by experts on diverse subjects including:
- CO2 sensitivity (low),
- sea level changes (1.1mm/year globally),
- the insignificance of bovine flatulence,
- the possibility that it is atmospheric mass which affects surface temperature rather than the percentages of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere,
- the tragic loss of life in the Grenfell tower inferno which was caused by EU regulations driven by “climate-scare”.
In addition, climate policies tied to foreign aid are forcing African people to continue cooking over charcoal and dung because electrical power generation on a large scale is deemed “undesirable”. And while boosting the use of biomass may help “green energy” statistics, it also shortens lives and reduces the ability of African societies to add value to the raw materials they produce. There are also knock-on effects which are driving mass migration.
Climate change is not the problem – climate policy is! We urge all Governments to exit their destructive climate policies.
Take this Climate change IQ Test:
Jane M. Orient, M.D., physician, President Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
We did elect Trump to get us out of the Paris Agreement; we did our Clexit, we are trying to hold on to it. One biggest problem, in the fight against CO2 alarmism is the huge number of Luke-Warmers that say they are on our side. Promoting a CO2 sensitivity that is almost 2 degrees supports the idea that CO2 has a serious role in temperature regulation. Water, in all of its states, is abundant and water, ice, and water vapor, is the self correcting force that keeps earth temperature in narrow bounds, much more narrow bounds during the recent ten thousand year Holocene. Climate changes in natural cycles and man does not cause them.
Herman A (Alex) Pope
Retired from NASA in Houston in 2007
It is clear that the push to meet the Paris carbon dioxide emission targets is leading to higher power costs, and hence prices, and unreliable supply.
It is also a fact that the predictions of the warmists have not happened.
The IPCC scientific reports are stated in possibilities, yet the guidance for policy makers is written as certainty. A farce.
I hope the new leadership of the Australian Government has the courage to guide our country in a rational manner on this subject as Angus Taylor seems keen to do, and abandons the Paris Treaty.
Jerry Ellis AO
Retired Chairman BHP, retired Chancellor Monash University, and retired Chairman of Landcare