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.

vostok-140kc
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/…/KkU…/s1600-h/Vostok-140Kc.jpg

 

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

http://serc.carleton.edu/…/proxies/milankovich_cycles.png

 
700 million years data.

cc2http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

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

geological_timescalehttp://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

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.

5http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2015/01/climate-tricks-37-climate-money-and.html

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

cc3

Christmas lights, energy mix and electricity production in Asia

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last December 21, 2016.

bw

The holiday season, among others, is marked by the presence of so many lighted streets, buildings, malls, and houses. These sparkling and glittering Christmas lights and decors — besides adding smiles and happiness — also indicate continuing and rising material prosperity of the Philippines and its cities.

The change in the energy mix policy by the Department of Energy (DoE) is better appreciated in this context. Not only do people want cheaper electricity, they also want 24/7 energy with no brownout even for one minute.

Below is a summary of the policies under resigned Secretary Carlos Jericho Petilla (November 2012-June 2015) then Acting Secretary Zenaida Monsada (July 2015-June 2016), and present Secretary Alfonso Cusi (see Table 1).

There are three important reasons why the Cusi formula of energy mix via system capacity makes more sense.

First and foremost is the price impact to electricity consumers. Forcing and mandating more natural gas, more solar-wind into the grid and the distribution utilities will mean even more expensive electricity and more unstable energy supply because of the intermittency, on-off nature of wind-solar.

Consider the feed in tariff allowance (FiT-All) for the variable REs: four centavos/kWh in 2015, 12.40 centavos/kWh in 2016, and 23 centavos/kWh in 2017 based on Transco petition for FiT-All hike at the Energy Regulatory Commission. The bulk of this rising FiT cost to consumers will go to wind and solar plants because they have the higher rates and higher installed capacity. The 23 centavos is on the assumption that it will be granted by the ERC by January 2017. Further delays for few months will mean more under-recoveries and hence, higher rate of 25 centavos-28 centavos by 2017.

Second, our current power capacity and actual electricity production remains small compared to our more economically significant neighbors in the region, and our coal consumption is also way small compared to their coal use. It is not wise to further restrict our baseload power capacity if we aim to sustain fast economic growth into the next decades to come.

Brunei, Myanmar, and Cambodia are excluded from this list because of their small electricity production (see Table 2).

o2_122116

Third, the “more renewables to save the planet” argument does not hold water until now. Proof? Whenever I am engaged in a climate and energy debate with various groups and individuals who insist on the anthropogenic or “man-made” global warming/climate change (CC) hypothesis, I ask these two questions:

  1. Of planet Earth’s 4.6 billion years age, when was the time, what period, that there was NO climate change?
  1. What was it like before this “man-made” warming — less rain, no rain, more rains? Less flood, no flood, more floods? Less snow, no snow, more snow? Please cite scientific sources for your two answers above.

One hundred percent of the time, their answer is the sound of silence. Or they will put various links, various reasons, and alibis but none of which answer directly any of the two questions. Which shows that the anthropogenic climate change argument remains shaky and questionable. Even the UN IPCC literatures do not discuss paleo-climate data dating back to millions of years ago. This is because planet Earth’s climate history is characterized by natural climate cycle of warming-cooling, with or without humans and their malls, cars, airplanes and coal power plants.

Mandating “more renewables to save the planet” will only succeed in making the country less developed, since electricity will become costly and supply unstable. Big energy-intensive manufacturing plants and foreign investments would rather locate in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, countries with cheaper electricity and more stable, brownouts-proof energy supply, then export huge volume to the Philippines at zero tariff under the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC).

Of the many Cabinet Secretaries of the Duterte administration, DoE Secretary Cusi is among those standing tall. His energy realism (not alarmism) policies of “appropriate energy mix should be decided by the consumers, not by government” is a market- and growth-friendly philosophy.

Trump transition team questions for US DOE

This is not directly related to energy issues in Asia but US climate and energy policies can reverberate strongly in Asia and other continents/countries. Hence, I am reposting this article by Willis Eschenbach, The DOE vs. Ugly Reality last December 10, 2016, about the 74 questions sent by Mr. Trump’s transition team to the current DOE leadership.

I think those question are frank and highly sensible. But there are many news reports attacking the letter and questions, saying they infringe on DOE scientists’ independence, etc., and they cite only a few of those 74 questions. Good work there, Willis, thank you
————–

usdoe1Questions for DOE

This memo, as you might expect, is replete with acronyms. “DOE” is the Department of Energy. Here are the memo questions and my comments.

  1. Can you provide a list of all boards, councils, commissions, working groups, and FACAs [Federal Advisory Committees] currently active at the Department? For each, can you please provide members, meeting schedules, and authority (statutory or otherwise) under which they were created?

If I were at DOE, this first question would indeed set MY hair on fire. The easiest way to get rid of something is to show that it was not properly established … boom, it’s gone. As a businessman myself, this question shows me that the incoming people know their business, and that the first order of business is to jettison the useless lumber.

  1. Can you provide a complete list of ARPA-E’s projects?

Critical information for an incoming team.

3 Can you provide a list of the Loan Program Office’s outstanding loans, including the parties responsible for paying the loan back, term of the loan, and objective of the loan?

4 Can you provide a list of applications for loans the LPO has received and the status of those applications?

5 Can you provide a full accounting of DOE liabilities associated with any loan or loan guarantee programs?

6 The Department recently announced the issuance of $4.5 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicles (and perhaps associated infrastructure). Can you provide a status on this effort?

Oh, man, they are going for the jugular. Loan Program Office? If there is any place that the flies would gather, it’s around the honey … it’s good to see that they are looking at loan guarantees for electric vehicles, a $4.5 billion dollar boondoggle that the government should NOT be in. I call that program the “Elon Musk Retirement Fund”.

Folks, for $4.5 billion dollars, we could provide clean water to almost half a million villages around the world … or we could put it into Elon Musk’s bank account or the account of some other electric vehicle manufacturer. I know which one I’d vote for … and I am equally sure which one the poor of the world would prefer.

7 What is the goal of the grid modernization effort? Is there some terminal point to this effort? Is its genesis statutory or something else?

Asking the right questions about vague programs …

8 Who “owns” the Mission Innovation and Clean Energy Ministerial efforts within the Department?
Continue reading

CCC’s anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel lobbying

The Climate Change Commission (CCC) was created mainly to echo the UN FCCC agreements and lobbying. They may deny this of course but from its activities and advocacies, they point to this fact. Look at its target — “Survive 1.5 C” — referring to the UN target of targeted allowable global warming by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels.

cc
Some of more ridiculous documents by the UN FCCC project up to 7.5 C global warming by 2100. Wow. The modern warm period (from mid-1800s to 2000s) after the little ice age (LIA) produced a warming of only 1.0 F or 0.7 C in the planet. Plateau in overall global temperature, we are moving to a global cooling phase, actually.

Anyway, the CCC organized a “Forum on National Policy Review and Framework Development on Energy” last week November 22 at Sofitel Philippine Plaza, CCP Complex, Pasay City. A friend told me about this and CCC invited some energy players in the country.

The CCC launched the “National Policy Review (NPR) and Framework Development on Energy” last June 16, 2016. The November 22 Forum was part of a series of multi-stakeholder consultations to review the country’s energy policy and develop a policy framework on energy related to CCC Resolution No. 2016-001.

Get that, CCC plans to somehow duplicate if not overrule the DOE in setting the country’s energy policy. The CCC is firm on anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel ideology while the DOE wants to increase the country’s energy capacity from as many power sources as possible, coal + oil plants + nat gas included.

The next day, November 23, there was a big business conference also at Sofitel on how to “low carbon economy”.

cc2

The CCC, along with the UN, Al Gore, WWF, etc. of course refer to CO2 in their “low carbon” scenario. The gas that we humans exhale, the gas that our pets and farm animals exhale, the gas that our crops, flowers and trees use to produce their own food via photosynthesis, has been declared as a pollutant gas, an “evil” gas by these groups and hence, must be controlled, restricted via more government regulations, prohibitions and taxation.

cc3
So reduce fossil fuel use in transportation, energy and industry. Really? The campaigners do not love their cars, frequent jet-setting to other countries that use fossil fuel 100%? They go to their offices and meetings on bicycles or skateboards or by walking, or hitching a ride with flying carpets or brooms? Enjoying the convenience of fossil fuel then lambasting it and still get lots of taxpayers money, cool.
———–

cc4Last October 21, Ateneo School of Government (ASoG) Reform Energy Project (REP) that also engages in implicit anti-coal campaign held a forum implicitly supporting natural gas.

REP’s Project Director is Tony la Vina, who was also the former Dean of ASoG and a perennial PH climate negotiator for the past two decades, since Kyoto Protocol negotiations, I think.

Look at the other speakers aside from government (CCC, DOE, ERC), from Energy Development Corp. (EDC) and Shell, both pushing for more nat gas.

I support more nat gas plants in the country. I also support more coal plants, more diesel power as peak-load plants, more hydro, more geothermal. Even more variable or intermittent renewables like wind-solar.

What I do not and cannot support are subsidies like FIT or guaranteed price for 20 years for intermittent renewables, priority dispatch in the grid, RPS, other forms of favoritism and cronyism at the expense of energy consumers like you and me.

I also do not support the government setting the “right” mandatory energy mix. Like 30-30-30-10 for coal-nat gas-renewables-oil, respectively. The ones who should set the appropriate and dynamic energy mix should be the consumers, not the government or greeny lobbyists.

Why? Because consumers would prefer cheaper, stable, available 24/7 (no blackout even for 1 minute) energy sources. If a firm goes bankrupt because of expensive monthly electricity bill, or its production is halted or damaged by on-off power supply and frequent blackouts, only they suffer the losses, not the government or the feel-good greeny lobbyists.

If people really believe that there is grid price parity of renewables now, then there is little or zero need for (a) subsidies ala FIT, RPS, priority dispatch to the grid, and (b) state-mandated and coerced energy mix nationwide.

Climate action and Asian energy realities

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Friday.

bw

Planet Earth is estimated by geologists and other scientists to be 4.6 billion years old. In that period, the world has experienced a series of warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles. So global warming and climate change (CC) have been there as natural (i.e., nature-made) and cyclical events. See dozens of paleo-climate data and charts that date back to thousands, millions and billions of years ago here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/.

Yet for decades now, we have been bombarded by the United Nations and other institutions and individuals who deny nature-made climate change and climate cycle, deny that global cooling can take place after a global warming phase. Owing to such denials, anthropogenic or “man-made” climate change can only be fought via man-made and UN-directed solutions like large-scale and endless subsidies to intermittent renewable sources.

Such is the dominant global belief and being formalized during the annual UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), like the Conference of Parties (COP) 22 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco from Nov. 7 to 18 this year.

The goal of the 160+ intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) is to “hold the average global temperature rise below 2 ºC and 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels.” (source: UNFCCC, “Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update Synthesis report by the secretariat,” May 2016)

It is another confused document from the UN.

For instance in Figure 14, p.64, the “Key climate hazards identified in the adaptation component of the communicated intended nationally determined contributions” are the following, in order of “hazards.”

Top 5: Floods, Droughts, Higher temperatures, Sea level rise, Storms.

Next 5: Decreased precipitation, Changes in precipitation timing, Vector/water-borne diseases, Increased precipitation intensity, Desertification/land degradation.

In short, the climate “hazards” for the planet according to the UN are more floods, less floods, and no flood; more rains, less rains and no rain; more storms, less storms and no storm. So regardless of the weather and climate, we should send more money to the UN and various government climate bureaucracies, give them more power, more global climate travels and meetings. And they will demonize fossil fuels like coal and oil to “save the planet.”

Such scenarios and proposals are very detached from the realities and needs of many countries, developed and developing alike.

Here are the data from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) released only two weeks ago (see table).

o4big_111716

Almost all of the big and developed economies in the region have high reliance on coal and/or natural gas, among the most prominent fossil fuels in the planet. The Philippines in particular has low national electricity production compared to many of its neighbors in north and south east Asia, only 75 billion kWh in 2013. The country also has a very low per capita electricity production of only 690 kWh/person.

Over the past two weeks, I have attended several conferences and meetings and the subject of “expensive electricity” and “insufficient supply of power” would crop up naturally even if the events are not specifically focused on energy.

These events include the DTI’s pre-summit consultation on FTAs and manufacturing industries last Nov. 3, pre-summit consultation on innovation and competitive industries last Nov. 4. One participant said that while garments are labor-intensive, textiles are energy-intensive and they can feel the pinch of high electricity prices.

Meanwhile, during the Philippine Economic Society (PES) annual conference at Novotel Cubao last Nov. 8, the two sessions on energy economics and competition policy have also touched on these subjects including competition in power generation companies and monopolies in power transmission and distribution.

In the Agribusiness commercial legal and institutional reform (AgCLIR) roundtable at Makati Shangri-La last Nov. 11, many agri-business enterprises in the country brought up the matter of high electricity costs.

Last but not the least, during the Asian Legal Business (ALB) — Thomson Reuters’s Competition Forum at Dusit Thani in Makati City last Nov. 15, one of the speakers, Dr. Raul Fabella of UPSE mentioned pricing under monopoly and duopoly or oligopoly, like in power distribution and generation.

The over-riding concern for the Philippines and other developing economies in Asia and the rest of the planet is how to hasten and sustain economic growth so that job creation and poverty alleviation can also be sustained. Having cheap and stable electricity is a major part in realizing this goal.

Forcing expensive and unstable energy sources to “fight climate change” as pushed by the UN and participating governments is contradictory to the above goal. After all, climate change from warming to cooling in natural cycles did happen in the past and continues to happen today.

Governments therefore, should be more realistic and not alarmist in pursuing that over-riding goal. Less ecological central planning, less energy rationing, less climate bureaucratism would be consistent with poverty alleviation.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET and Stratbase-ADRI.

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…/

tr1

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

tr2

“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.”

http://www.npr.org/…/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to

“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.”
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

tr3

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

bw5

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.