On Trump withrawal from the Paris Agreement

Finally, US President Donald Trump has officially dumped the Paris Agreement of 2015. He declared yesterday,

“We will cease honoring all non-binding agreements”, and “will stop contributing to the green climate fund”.

“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair to the United States”.

“This agreement is less about climate and more about other countries getting a financial advantage over the United States”.

“The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord… could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.”

“India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid.”

“We need all forms of available American energy or our country will be at grave risk of brown-outs and black-outs.”

“Withdrawing is in economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”

“We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work… We’re going to grow rapidly.”

“Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, & across the world should not have more to say w/ respect to the US economy than our own citizens.”

“It is time to exit the Paris Accord and time to pursue a new deal which protects the environment, our companies, our citizens.”

The agreement funds a UN Climate Slush Fund underwritten by American taxpayers

  • President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund – which is about 30 percent of the initial funding – without authorization from Congress
  • With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other countries’ energy

The deal also accomplishes LITTLE for the climate

  • According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than .2 degrees Celsius in 2100.


When I checked the US stockmarkets yesterday… Did the investors cheer Trump’s decision?


I am actually an agnostic about President Trump’s policies in many sectors but when it comes to climate and energy policies, I support him. Planet Earth has experienced climate change many times since it was born some 4.6 billion years ago. How can the UN and governments fight something that naturally occurs?

The higher the climate alarmism, the higher the climate extortion becomes. $100 billion/year starting 2020 on top of promised foreign aid to developing. Many governments of developed countries are angry at Trump’s decision because they promised a lot, they raised expectations a lot, even if they do not have such big money or cannot squeeze more taxes from their people to give away. They only expected that US taxpayers will shoulder a big portion of such climate extortion.

Now the annual huge parties and junkets involving thousands of “planet saviours” aka annual UNFCCC meetings will be pared down. No more $ hundreds of millions a year of US taxpayers’ money to bankroll their huge parties and junkets.

As expected, lefties’ and alarmists’ heads blew and hysteria, angst and tantrums were flying anywhere. See a short compilation of such hysteria at WUWT,
The craziest reactions to Trump pulling out of the #ParisAgreement

When I posted this subject in my fb wall, one alarmist stranger Cesar Cifra unloaded a series of personal attacks.


This Cifra is a friend of my friend and fellow UPSE alumni Romy Bernardo. I asked for data (like below, last 4,000 years global temp.) and this Cifra responded with ad hominems, what a lousy and low-life mind.

Anyway, this Trump decision is a big blow to the climate alarmism and global ecological socialism movement. A big blow to the UN and many governments whose revised purpose of existence is to tax-tax-tax their citizens as much as possible to “fight climate change” even if CC has been happening naturally, cyclically, for the past 4.6 B years.


Climate alarmism and global energy central planning

Socialists and trying-hard anti-capitalism ideologues in facebook, youtube, etc. who also severely enjoy facebook capitalism, youtube capitalism, keep harping about “man-made” warming/climate change (CC) and thus, demand more government and UN ecological + energy central planning.

They like posting sketches, alarmist articles which very often:

  1. Have no charts of temperature anomaly, only sketches and drawings.
  2. Claim “Earth’s warming at unprecented levels”, no chart or table to show; unprecedented, no precedent? Scam statement.

I always ask them these two questions:

(1) Planet Earth is 4.6 B years old, when, what period that there was no CC?
(2) What was it before this “man-made” CC — less rain, no rain, more rains? less flood, no flood, more flood? less snow, no snow, more snow? Less dogs, no dog, more dogs?

Always they have no answer. Some paleo-climate data showing warming-cooling cycle in the past. The climate alarmists close their eyes if the data do not support their “man-made” CC religion. 140k years ago.



1 million years data.  These guys have faith, strong faith in the words of Al Gore and the UN.


700 million years data.


Finally, here’s the 4.6 B years timescale. Warming-cooling, endless natural cycle.


What the data and charts above show is that even if 100% of all power plants in the world are from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, global cooling will still happen. And even if 100% of all energy in the planet is from hydro, wind, other renewables, global warming will still happen. But then religionists and climate evangelists will always have zero appreciation for data. Only faith, strong faith in the words of Al Gore and UN bible.

Why? Money, money, money. Hypocrisy-robbery.


Huge extortion racket, via governments, the UN and other multilaterals.


Donald Trump’s climate and energy policies

Anthropogenic or “man-made” climate change (CC) hypothesis is actually 5% climate science and 95% political science. A realistic view is that CC is natural (ie, ‘nature-made’) and cyclical (warming-cooling-warming-cooling…). So a change in political leadership of one of the major players will significantly increase the % share of real climate science and reduce the share of political science.

Some big news reports a day after Donald Trump was elected as the next US President.

“While vowing to “cancel” the international Paris climate accord Obama championed, Trump would also rearrange domestic energy and environmental priorities. He wants to open up federal lands to oil and gas drilling and coal mining. He wants to eliminate regulations he calls needless. He would scrap proposed regulations for tighter methane controls on domestic drillers. And he wants to shrink the role of the Environmental Protection Agency to a mostly advisory one and pull back the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s proposed plan to push utilities toward lower carbon emissions.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/trump-victory…/

“Global markets were thrown into disarray as results from the U.S. poured in. Wind turbine makers led the biggest declines in five months. Vestas Wind Systems A/S dropped 9.7 percent Wednesday after dropping 8.1 percent Tuesday when management announced a bleaker outlook for next year.” http://www.bloomberg.com/…/trump-victory-seen

“Shares in Vestas Wind Systems A/S plunged after U.S. voters unexpectedly propelled Republican nominee Donald Trump to the presidency, sparking concern that the renewable- energy industry will face future political headwinds.

The world’s biggest maker of wind turbines fell as much as 14 percent and traded 6.6 percent lower at 440.10 kroner as of 12:50 p.m. in Copenhagen. Stock of the Danish company already lost ground last week after U.S. polls tightened, bringing this year’s declines to about 10 percent.”http://www.bloomberg.com/…/vestas-sinks-as-trump

“On climate change, abandoning the Paris Treaty would be primarily of symbolic importance, since implementation has always been the biggest obstacle. China’s announcement of a 19% increase in coal capacity over the next five years demonstrates just how little committed many of the signers are. Possibly, President Trump will try to reduce federal support for renewables, but since that would cause the loss of many jobs and Congress has already extended the Production Tax Credit for five years, it’s not clear that much will be done, or at least not very quickly.”http://www.forbes.com/…/what-will-president-trump…/


Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (UK) wrote:

  1. U.S. withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from the Paris climate agreement and from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  1. Termination, on environmental and humanitarian grounds, of all Federal Government payments to foreign entities in connection with climate change…https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/in-light-of-recent…/

“Many years ago, Lord Monckton predicted America would be nation to lead the world to freedom from the anti-humanist greed of the green movement. Lord Monckton’s prediction has now come to pass.

In my native Australia, in Europe, across the world, in the bleak halls of the United Nations, the climate elite were gathering for one final great push to claim the future. Their plans are now in ruins.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/09/the-end-of-the-green-age/

From Marc Morano: “Climate sanity has been restored to the U.S. No longer do we have to hear otherwise intelligent people in charge in DC blather on about how UN treaties or EPA regulations will control the Earth’s temperature or storminess.” http://www.climatedepot.com/…/trump-wins-u-s…/

“The US president-elect “cannot prevent the implementation” of the landmark Paris pact, inked in the French capital last December, said Segolene Royal, France’s environment minister and outgoing head of the UN climate forum.

“As I speak, 103 countries representing 70 percent of (greenhouse gas) emissions have ratified it, and he cannot — contrary to his assertions — undo the Paris Agreement,” she told French radio station RTL.”https://www.yahoo.com/…/climate-diplomats-push-back

Their big problem is that hundreds of those “planet saviours” from developing countries, NGOs, etc were paid for by US taxpayers, courtesy of Pres. Obama’s embrace of climate alarmism movement.

“Paris accord in limbo?

As for the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump can either ignore it or withdraw from further climate talks. Since Obama bypassed congress by calling it an accord—a treaty requires approval by the Senate—Trump could repeal the executive order Obama used to implement the agreement.”http://us.blastingnews.com/…/here-s-what-a-trump


“The bigger concerns, climate researchers, strategists and activists say, is if Trump prevents the U.S. from meeting its target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions or keeps the country from taking more ambitious climate action. The U.S. has promised to reduce emissions 26-28 percent by 2025 compared to 2005 levels, a goal many say may be within reach simply based on the market forces already pushing out older coal plants in favor of natural gas.” https://insideclimatenews.org/…/marrakech-morocco

“SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.”


“Seven actions to protect American workers:….

★ FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

★ SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.

★ SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fi x America’s water and environmental infrastructure.”


The climate alarmism movement with the goal of more UN, more government, more carbon taxation, more renewables cronyism, more and endless global climate junkets, more climate loans, would be reeling now because the “party might be over soon.”

More real climate science, less political science. More market in science debates, less government interventions in debate.

Climate change, the UN and ‘Clexit’

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last September 08, 2016


Last weekend, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon declared during the G20 summit in China that “climate change scepticism is over.” This statement is wrong on two counts.

First, the term climate change (CC) skepticism or “CC denial” is wrong because skeptics recognize climate change, having happened in the past and currently taking place in the present. However, skeptics only believe that climate change is natural and cyclical, or it is “nature-made” and not man-made. Thus, the appropriate term should be “anthropogenic/man-made skepticism” and not “CC skepticism.”

Second, the debate is not over and was never settled.

If the debate is “over,” then how come that the UN (UNEP, WMO, IPCC, FCCC, etc.) could not answer (a) how much of current CC was man-made and nature-made? Is it 100-0, or 90-10, or 75-25, or 51-49? And (b) what was it like before this “man-made” CC, less flood, no flood, or more flood? Less storms, no storm, or more storms?

A Web site (http://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate) used Greenland surface temperature as proxy for global temperature, and galactic cosmic rays’ (GCRs) volume.

GCRs are charged particles from exploding stars that wander through the universe including our solar system. They help in the formation of cloud cover in our planet, so that more GCRs mean more clouds. The presence of GCRs in the Earth’s atmosphere is regulated by the sun. Active sun through more total solar irradiance (TSI) means less GCRs that can enter the solar system and hence, less cloud, contributing to global warming. A weaker sun means more GCRs and hence, more clouds, contributing to global cooling.

Temperature changes in Greenland are measured in temperature anomaly (or deviation from the average temperature) while changes in GCRs are measured in carbon -14 anomaly (or deviation from the average volume of carbon -14). The author has shown there is correlation between GCRs count and Greenland temperature cycle of warming-cooling.

This correlation between GCRs and global temperature has been studied and shown by a known Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark many years ago, and followed up by hundreds of other papers by other physicists and geologists worldwide.

Recently, a group of scientists from the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU Space) and the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has shown the link between large solar eruptions (or their absence) to changes in Earth’s cloud cover based on over 25 years of satellite observations. They wrote,

“Earth is under constant bombardment by particles from space called galactic cosmic rays. Violent eruptions at the sun’s surface can blow these cosmic rays away from Earth for about a week. Our study has shown that when the cosmic rays are reduced in this way there is a corresponding reduction in Earth’s cloud cover. Since clouds are an important factor in controlling the temperature on Earth our results may have implications for climate change,“explains lead author on the study Jacob Svensmark of DTU. (Source: WUWT, “Svensmark publishes: Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover,” Aug. 25.)

These and other scientific studies show that all the huge annual climate meetings of the UN and national governments for many years are based on questionable if not wrong hypothesis and assumption that natural factors like the Sun, GCRs, clouds, water vapor, are not the main drivers of planet Earth’s climate, that it is only human emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) that drives the “unprecedented, unequivocal” global warming. Therefore, their solution that more UN and governments’ interventions, taxation, and regulations will “fight man-made” warming and CC is wrong.

And that is how various global associations and alliances of independent-minded scientists and NGOs were formed. The most recent of which is “Clexit,” http://clexit.net/.

Inspired by “Brexit” or Britain’s exit from the huge EU bureaucracy, “Clexit” or Climate Exit from UN FCCC, the climate alarmism and energy cronyism was formed last August.

Here is part of the summary statement made by Viv Forbes, Founding Secretary of “Clexit”:

“For developing countries, the Paris Treaty would deny them the benefits of reliable low-cost hydrocarbon energy, compelling them to rely on biomass heating and costly weather-dependent and unreliable power supplies, thus prolonging and increasing their dependency on international handouts. They will soon resent being told to remain forever in an energy-deprived wind/solar/wood/bicycle economy.

“Perhaps the most insidious feature of the UN climate plan is the “Green Climate Fund.” Under this scheme, selected nations (“The rich”) are marked to pour billions of dollars into a green slush fund. The funds will then be used to bribe other countries (“developing and emerging nations”) into adopting silly green energy policies.

“Carbon dioxide does not control the climate. It is an essential plant food and more carbon dioxide will produce more plant growth and a greener globe.”

“Clexit” now comprises 158 members from 23 counties. The “Clexit” Committee is headed by Dr. Václav Klaus, an econometrician and former prime minister and president of the Czech Republic, as Hon. Patron. “Clexit” President is Christopher Monckton from UK, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report on CC and author of numerous peer-reviewed papers on climate sensitivity and mitigation.

The few but deep members of “Clexit” include the following:

  • Official IPCC reviewers but dissented from the final public IPCC reports prepared by political appointees.
  • Meteorologists, climatologists, physicists, radiation experts, climate modelers, and long-range forecasters who show that the assumptions and forecasts of the greenhouse-driven computer models are faulty.
  • Organic chemists, biologists, physicians, naturalists, graziers, foresters and farmers who know that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial for Earth’s biosphere.
  • Sea level history and measurement experts who can prove that there is nothing unusual or alarming about current fluctuations in sea levels.
  • Geologists and geographers who have studied eons of climate history via ice cores, stratigraphy, paleontology, deep-sea drilling, historical records, glaciers, ice sheets and landscapes and can show that CC is normal and today’s climate is not extreme or unusual.
  • Astrophysicists, geologists, and researchers who have studied the cycles of ice ages and the climate effects of the Milankovitch cycles in Earth’s orbit — obliquity, eccentricity and precession, and say that the 1,000 year climate averages are trending towards the next glacial epoch of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
  • Medical researchers who point to evidence that exposure to cold are up to 20 times more lethal than exposure to heat.
  • Power engineers and logistics experts who say that wind and solar power cannot run modern industrial societies, modern transport, or big cities except by installing massive overcapacity and gigantic transmission webs at exorbitant costs. 100% wind/solar is a recipe for blackouts and starvation.
  • Politicians, businessmen, columnists, lawyers, army officers, and bloggers who see that this political agenda will destroy the freedoms we cherish.

The formation of “Clexit” was not prompted or supported by any industry, corporation, group or lobby nor have they had any say in the association’s statements or conclusions.

The “anthropogenic CC” camp is driven by a desire for more, bigger UN, and governments. They desire more government regulations, taxation or subsidy of energy, transportation, manufacturing, down to micro household lifestyle.

A “Clexit” is a way to regain scientific objectivity, economic rationality, and protect individual and enterprise freedom from ever-expanding UN and governments, local and national.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, a SEANET Fellow and “Clexit” temporary regional director for Southeast Asia.

Earth Hour drama and basic electrical eng’g.

Another Earth Hour drama yesterday. The WWF guys, their buddies, should do it nightly, 365 nights a year, and several hours a night if possible. Better yet, they should have an office in North Korea where EH is a nightly reality for many of its neighbors.

A good satellite photo of Europe and Africa, same time zones. Darkness is cool? Am laughing.

Photo from http://geology.com/articles/satellite-photo-earth-at-night.shtml
I am reposting a nice intro to basic electrical  engineering, from my engineer-economist friend, Cynthia Hernandez. Cynthia gave me permission to repost this. Thanks Cynths.

March 20, 2016

Scene in the house last night:

Mother: (looks at clock) Naku! 8:30 na! We have to turn off the lights for Earth Hour.

Me: (launches into my Earth Hour rant*)

End result: Lights and aircon stay ON! Woohoo!

*Earth Hour rant (slightly) condensed: Electricity is not just the Demand side. You turn off the lights, your meter runs slightly less, and you think, “Hurrah, I saved ×× kWh less, yey me, I’m such an Earth Warrior!” Then you pat yourself on the back and not think about the environment for the rest of the year.

However, on the Supply side, the huge generators that have to run to feed the Nation’s addiction to OTWOL (or whatever is the current obsession. I don’t watch TV so maybe that gives me environmentalist points?) don’t stop spinning. Why? If you’re running your car at 100 kph, you don’t brake to 0 kph in 1 second, right? And these generators are engines that are a million times larger and more complex.

So, when everybody turns off their lights, generators don’t spontaneously use less fossil fuel. They are not designed like that. Especially if demand is expected to pick up again after an hour. Most likely scenario is that they are still running in reserve mode and burning fossil fuels as they do so.

Thus, the glowing news articles that appear a day after Earth Hour saying “Hey, you brave Earth-saving person, you saved xxx tons of CO2 from going into the air!” are simplistic. You might not be getting billed for that electricity, but the infrastructure that delivers that electricity to you has only slowed down slightly.

If you really want to make an impact, don’t use electricity for an ENTIRE DAY. That means not subjecting the electric grid to the stress of an hourlong demand drop. The system operators, that have to take extraordinary measures so that your appliances don’t get fried by a massive voltage surge, will thank you. That is, if you can stand to be without electricity in this heat. Good luck with that.

‪#‎ThinkBeforeGoingOnABandwagon ‪#‎ILoveElectricity ‪#‎EarthHourIsStupid

Meanwhile, this quote is from Bjorn Lomborg, he tweeted it. Cool.


Global ecological socialism — the main goal of climate alarmism and the “man-made” or anthropogenic warming/climate change — is deceptive and lousy, they wish to see more, bigger governments. The WWF, Greenpeace, the United Nations, other big international campaigners are simply saying, “save the planet… (send more money to us).”

Tony la Vina’s anti-coal alarmism

Aside from Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Oxfam and other big environmental NGOs, one prominent anti-coal (and anti-fossil fuels, anti-mining, anti-…) crusader to “save the planet” is Atty. Tony la Vina, outgoing Dean of the Ateneo School of Government.

In his 3 recent columns (January 16, January 26, February 06, 2016) in The Standard, he articulated various anti-coal alarmism claims, below. I added some data and 2 articles from WUWT by Eric Worral.


The various “planet saviours” celebrated big time last December during the UN FCCC’s COP 21 in Paris, saying they signed a deal that will further limit fossil fuels like coal. But look at the chart — coal power is projected to experience the biggest rise and share to total global energy use. See WUWT, Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No! July 21, 2015.

In Tony LV’s article today in The Standard, Coal is not least costly technology, he argued that

“When we factor in the environmental, health and social impacts of coal on communities—as we should—operating coal-fired power plants bear costs that are unfortunately paid for by people who will be affected the most by the ill effects of CFPPs. These costs are not often accounted for in the electricity price because they are considered externalities.”

Really? The clear alternative to coal aside from more natural gas (another fossil fuel) is frequent brownouts, frequent electricity outage. And what happens if there is frequent brownout? (a) More crimes at night as criminals love darkness, (b) more road accidents, (c) more fires as more people use candles, and (d) more air and noise pollution as more people buy and use gensets that noisily run on diesel.

Why? Because electricity from coal comprises more than one-half of actual power production in Luzon grid including Metro Manila in the first half of 2015. Another fossil fuel, natural gas, produced nearly one-third of the grid’s actual power generation. In the Visayas grid, coal produces almost 40% of power generation there.

EPDP Conference 2016, 12-13 January 2016, New World Hotel, Makati City.

Tony LV also wrote,

“In a previous column, I described how these pollutants harm the environment; the same also result in adverse health impact. Long-term effects of pollutants from CFPPs include respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological diseases.”

Really? As of 2014, Vietnam and Malaysia have nearly 2x coal power consumption than the PH. Taiwan and Indonesia have nearly 4x and 6x coal consumption than PH. S. Korea has nearly 8x and Japan nearly 12x coal consumption than PH.

Not to mention also huge coal power consumption by Germany, Russia, India, USA and China.

Source: BP, Statistical Review Power Data Workbook 2015

Do we see massive health problems on those countries that have more coal plants than the PH? If one is into emotionalism and alarmism, the answer is Yes. If one is into realism and facts, the answer is No.

Among the silent goals of anti-coal alarmism and emotionalism is to have more climate junkets, endless global junkets, for many years and decades, as “planet saviours” and climate negotiators. Even Japan considers high tech coal plants as saving the planet. More than 1,000 new coal plants in Asia alone coming up. http://wattsupwiththat.com/…/japan-building-coal…/

Paris COP and France’s nuke power

The UN’s Conference of Parties (COP) 21 meeting in Paris ended yesterday. The planet saviours, UN and high government climate/environment officials were happy that they produced a non-binding agreement.

A week before that, many were complaining about climate money. Take this story for instance last December 04, 2015:

“PARIS, France – Angry developing nations warned Thursday that increasingly tense UN talks aimed at averting catastrophic climate change would fail unless a bitter feud over hundreds of billions of dollars was resolved.

Negotiators from 195 nations are haggling in Paris over a planned universal accord to slash greenhouse-gas emissions that trap the Sun’s heat, warming Earth’s surface and oceans and disrupting its delicate climate system.”


Some stories at the end of the COP 21 meeting, December  11, 2015:

“Britain and other rich countries face demands for $3.5 trillion (£2.3 trillion) in payments to developing nations to secure a deal in Paris to curb global warming. Developing countries have added a clause to the latest draft of the text under which they would be paid the “full costs” of meeting plans to cut emissions.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4637269.ece

“The night saw an ugly brawl as US Secretary Of State John Kerry threatened that developed countries would walk out of the agreement if they were asked to commit to differentiation or financial obligations. “You can take the US out of this. Take the developed world out of this. Remember, the Earth has a problem. What will you do with the problem on your own?” he told ministers from other countries during a closed-door negotiation on the second revised draft of the Paris agreement.”

“Reacting to second version of the draft, Adriano Campolina, ActionAid Chief Executive, said, “In the closing hours of the Paris talks we have been presented with a draft deal that denies the world justice.

“By including a clause for no future claim of compensation and liability, the US has ensured people suffering from the disastrous impacts of climate change will never be able to seek the justice owed to them.”

So here are some of the ironies and hypocrisy of climate alarmism movement.

Irony/hypocrisy 1: more alarmism, more extortion for climate money, more anger and disappointent.

Irony/hypocrisy 2: more hatred of fossil fuel, more use of fossil fuel with thousands of airplane flights to reach Paris from tens of thousands of climate negotiators + hangers on.

Irony/hypocrisy 3: many planet saviours hate nuclear power, then they go to France, enjoy uninterrupted electricity while France is the #1 nuke-dependent country in the planet. In 2013, 76% of its total electricity output came from nuke.

Greenpeace irony/hypocrisy very clear. They oppose nuke power, declaring, “End the nuclear age”

And they are in France, the #1 nuke-dependent country in the planet. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th nuke-dependent countries are Ukraine, Sweden, S. Korea and the US, 2012 data.

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA), 2014 Key World Energy Statistics.

The planet is fine, just undergoing the old and tested climate cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, endlessly, with or without humans, their SUVs and nuke/coal plants.

The planet’s inhabitants need to be spared from self-styled planet saviours whose goal in spreading climate alarmism is more government, more global ecological and energy central planning.