Petition for withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement

An electronic petition for Australia to follow the US lead and immediately withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement is now open for signatures.

It received approval from the petitions committee Wednesday 21/6.

More information on the petition can be found on John McLean's page:

Various details are shown below (with a 'contents' list at the top).

Please spread the word.
1. URLs
2. Reformatted petition
3. Background and explanatory notes
4. Biographical note

1 URLs 

OR                      (aoopca = Australia out of Paris Climate Agreement)
Go to      and search for EN0264

2. Reformatted petition 

Australia to follow the lead of the USA and immediately withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement


(a) The damage and impairment to the Australian economy and the financial pain inflicted on our citizens and residents caused by inflated energy costs will be very significant and are very likely to be increased in future. 

(b) Australian greenhouse gas emissions are insignificant and have no measurable influence on global average temperature, meaning that Australia's involvement is merely a political gesture.

(c) The ratification of the Agreement was made without due regard to the IPCC's Fifth Climate Assessment Report (5AR) of 2013, which says that (i) atmospheric carbon dioxide increased over the 15 years prior to the report, (ii) there was no statistical certainty that average global temperature increased over that time and (iii) 111 of 114 climate model runs predicted greater warming over that period than the temperature observations indicate.  These statements undermine the notion of significant manmade warming and undermine the credibility of claims based on the output of climate models.

(d) The ratification was made without due attention to the Agreement's detail, specifically "Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels".  The Agreement gives no indication of when "pre-industrial" refers to, no indication of how global average temperatures at that time were determined or of how the current average global temperature will be calculated for the purposes of the Agreement. 

3. Background and explanatory notes 
Point (a) argues against Australian suffering rises in energy cost as a consequence of the Agreement and the likely increased suffering as the terms of the Paris Agreement are increased in future.  (Even the UNFCCC admits that Paris was only a start.)

Point (b) argues that Australia's contribution to total greenhouse gases is negligible and we'd be making a lot of effort but achieving virtually nothing.  

Points in (c) are based on extracts from the 2013 IPCC Climate Assessment Report (5AR).  The data on CO2 levels is from figure 2.1 (chapter 2, pg 167) and the other two points are from :

         1.       "... the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) ..." [WG I SPM, page 5, section B.1, bullet point 3, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-6]

         2.       "... an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (...) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble ...." [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]


        1 – According to statistical practices the trend in temperature from 1998 to 2012 (the 15 years prior to the report being drafted) falls somewhere between slight warming (0.15C/decade) and slight cooling (-0.05).  In other words there is no certainty that any warming occurred.

        2 – Despite claims of the accuracy of climate models most of the model runs (97%) predicted more warming from 1998 to 2012 than the temperature observations show.

Point (d) is from Article 2 point 1(a) of the Agreement, which was downloaded from   (or use ).   The specific issues raised are:

- "Pre-industrial" is undefined. Google the term and you'll find that some people say just before 1750 because it was prior to the major industrial period that started in that year, but others say 1850-1900 and a relatively recent scientific paper suggests that 1720-1800 should be used.

- How do we know what the global average temperature was back then (so that we will know when we've reached 1.5C or 2.0C)?  The simple answer is that we don't know.  Only 37 temperature observation stations operated in 1800 with 34 of them in Europe which at the time was in the grip of the Little Ice Age.  Climate models won't reliably predict the temperatures back in time and proxies like trying to match tree-ring growth to temperature aren't accurate because other factors might cause changes.

The real problem that point (d) addresses is that it could be claimed tomorrow that the 1.5C point, or even the 2.0C point, had been reached and the world had to do more about emissions and compensation.  Without having the basic data discussed above there would be no way to question the claim and any country that had committed to action under the Paris Climate Treaty would feel obliged to take further action regardless of the pain and suffering of its citizens.   

4. Biographic Note 
John McLean was the leading reviewer of the second draft of the scientific portion (i.e. the Working Group I portion) of the latest IPCC Climate Assessment Report (5AR).  He read all chapters and made about 500 comments covering every chapter except the last.

He is also the author of four peer-reviewed papers on climate and has been cited in several recent books on the climate debate for his detailed analysis and criticisms of the IPCC.



  1. Replies
    1. Go to any of the links above or cut and paste this link:

      You will receive a confirmation email and you have to click on a link to confirm.

  2. Signed. Currently 121 signatures!

    1. Signed. Currently 205 signatures

  3. One fundamental point that over rides all is that the people overwhelmingly voted in the 2013 election to repeal the carbon tax law which named as anything else is still a carbon tax and by signing the agreement with the UN is contrary to what we voted.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!