Tuesday, 2 August 2016

Climate Exit - Clexit

Summary Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding Secretary of Clexit

A new international organisation aims to prevent ratification of the costly and dangerous Paris global warming treaty which is being promoted by the EU and the present US administration.
“CLEXIT” (Climate Exit) was inspired by the Brexit decision of the British people to withdraw from the increasingly dictatorial grasp of the EU bureaucracy.
Without any publicity or serious recruiting, Clexit has attracted over 60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders from 16 countries.
The secretary of Clexit, Mr Viv Forbes from Australia, said that widespread enforcement of the Paris climate treaty would be a global tragedy.
“For the EU and the rest of the Western world, ratification and enforcement of the Paris Treaty (and all the other associated decrees and Agendas) would herald the end of low-cost hydrocarbon transport and electricity, and the exit of their manufacturing, processing and refining industries to countries with low-cost energy. 
“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. 
“Naturally some smart politicians and speculators in the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and in the small island nations, understand that they can profit from the Paris Treaty by gaming the rules on things like carbon credits, or milking the green fund for “climate compensation” or “green energy technology”. This will only work for a while, and when the handouts stop, the re-adjustment to reality will be very painful. 
“This UN-driven war on carbon energy has already caused massive losses and dislocation of western industry. If allowed to continue as envisaged by the Paris Treaty, this economic recession will become a world-wide depression, and all nations will suffer. 
“We must stop this futile waste of community savings; cease the destruction and dislocation of human industry; stop killing rare bats and birds with wind turbine blades and solar/thermal sizzlers; stop pelletising trees and shipping them across the world to feed power stations designed to burn coal; stop converting food to motor vehicle fuel; and stop the clearing of bush and forests for biofuel cultivation and plantations.”
“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.”
PDF version of this summary statement, the founding statement and more reading: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit.pdf [296 KB]

The initial Clexit Committee and the list of Founding Members:
http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit-members.pdf[158 KB]

H/t Tim Ball


  1. Got any actual scientific data that contradicts the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists.

    1. Apart from what was linked in the post above?

      If that is not enough for you, you could always go to the NIPCC http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

      AND of course, you could look at these 770 peer reviewed papers in the last two years: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/770-papers-questioning-agw-consensus.html

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. To me, the most compelling empirical evidence against the claims by many climate scientists (the climate establishment) that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming/climate change is the failure of their models to predict what is occurring in the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect takes place. See testimony by John Christy, below:
      Ken Haapala, President

      Prepared Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space & Technology
      By John Christy, UAH, Feb 2, 2016

    4. Yes, overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gases can only cool. See http://itsnotco2.com (including the 'Evidence' page there) and the linked papers, videos and blog, where there is AU $10,000 for the first to prove me wrong before March 2018.

  2. A more relevant question would be, "is there any credible empirical evidence to support the Alarmist claims"???

    In 35 years of asking, after billions have been spent, no one has ever posted any.

    1. If you would ask that one simple question to a climate scientist you will probably get a blank stare. Others have asked that question and gotten nothing. I have a friend and neighbor who's a professional meteorologist and university lecturer in atmospherics and one month ago I asked him to provide me with ONE title of research that demonstrates that CO2 causes GW. CAUSES, not just correlates with. I figured with the resources of a major university there should be some bit of research that confirms the position of the warmists. Well, no. He couldn't find any. There is NO research that supports the AGW position. Nothing. Nada. This stuff that 97% of all scientists agree that CO2 is the driver of climate is a smoke screen to hide the fact that there's no scientific support for it.

  3. You don't need to buy my book "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" that is based on my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" that is linked from my website http://climate-change-theory.com and my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com. We cannot defeat them with temperature data, especially when more warming starts by about 2028. We HAVE to defeat the scam at the roots - namely by using the laws of physics to prove greenhouse gases can only cool, not warm. Rain forests are not 50 degrees hotter than dry deserts at similar latitude and altitude - they are cooler. Radiation from the atmosphere CANNOT be added to solar radiation and the result used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to "explain" a 288K mean surface temperature. The mean solar radiation of 168W/m^2 impinging on the surface could not even explain 233K (-40°C) and, in general, planetary surface temperatures of planets with significant atmospheres cannot be explained with radiation of any form. I have been first in the world to explain the actual non-radiative process that does explain what happens, and together we can work to ensure Australia leads the world in exposing the hoax.

  4. Before we can pretend that "climate change" is dangerous, shouldn't we first prove that "climate stasis" is possible? Atmospheric temperature is a reflection of climate not a driver of it, the sun delivers the energy, water moves it around and geomorphology and turbulence determines it's path.


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