Will Trump Do the Right Thing?

The rational for rejecting the UNFCCC and the Paris Accord is expressed clearly and concisely by the French Mathematical Modelling Company following their exhaustive study.  Title is link to their document, the executive summary is presented below.

The battle against global warming is an absurd, costly and pointless crusade.

The crusade is absurd

There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way “disturbed”. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.

Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.

We are being told that “a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented”. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.

The crusade is costly

Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as “virtuous” runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of “energy saving”, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.

We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2 emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise, including those generated by France in designing and manufacturing its own products, as the Cour des Comptes clearly states. Quite simply, manufacturing that is held to be environmentally damaging has been relocated. So the same products are now being manufactured in countries that are far less respectful of the environment, and we have lost all the associated jobs. As Baudelaire says, “Nature‘s irony combines with our insanity”.

The crusade is pointless

Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.

French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.

This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

Gouda tulip bulb prices in guilders. In the background- The Viceroy- one of the most expensive specimens depicted in a Dutch catalogue from 1637. A single bulb reached 3.000-4.200 guilders. A yearly salary of a skilled craftsman equalled approximately 300 guilders.

 

 

 

Advertisements

8 comments

  1. Bob Greene · June 1

    The major effect seems to be that the major funder of the $100b/yr slush fund will go away and US energy costs will not be subject to artificial increases due to policy. The Obama centerpiece, the Clean Power Plan, was not claimed to change global temperature. However, if the US drops out, the temperature in 2100 is supposed to rise by an immeasurable amount.

    What will happen if the US does not withdraw:
    The US GHG emissions will decrease.The US GHG emissions reductions will likely continue to lead the world and will decrease from 50% of China to less than 50%. China and India will continue to build and open coal fired power plants until 2030 and then will think about changing their policies. US power rates will increase drastically. The US will be a major contributor to the $100b/year fund. Global temperatures will not increase or decrease, depending on the model.
    What will happen if the US withdraws:
    The US GHG emissions will decrease.The US GHG emissions reductions will likely continue to lead the world and will decrease from 50% of China to less than 50%. China and India will continue to build and open coal fired power plants until 2030 and then will think about changing their policies. Developing nations may pull out because the big trough of cash may not be there (this may include China.) The worst case scenario for global temperature is an increase of 0.3°.

    Like

    • Ron Clutz · June 1

      Thanks for that comparison, Bob. No wonder Trump’s advisors are scratching their heads. Is it better pretending to go along with an empty, symbolic arrangement and be one of the guys, or declare it a farce and offend those who can’t admit they’ve been fooled?

      Like

  2. ArndB · June 1

    A strong paper! But unfortunately the earth is not flat (has not only an atmosphere), but is round and “governed” by an ocean. http://oceansgovernclimate.com/ This is the reason the paper is of little help. The CONCLUSION (p. 147ff) reveals this very clearly; after having outlined the CO2 issue at length, they suddenly claim “Nor do they (human)have any means to alter the composition or temperature of the oceans, the albedo of the Earth, etc.” I strongly object.
    Donald Trump and James Inhofe (R-Okl.) are right in claiming IPCC’s Global Warming is Greatest Hoax. But both ignore the fundamental climate driver, the oceans.
    http://oceansgovernclimate.com/james-inhofe-r-okl-global-warming-is-greatest-hoax/ .

    Both are incapable to define the term CLIMATE in a meaningful manner. To deny ‘global warming’ over the last 150 years since the end of the Little Ice Age is as ignorant, as the claim by his opponents on AGW by carbon dioxide. Anthropogenic interference in weather matters, is a highly possible issue, if one no longer ignores, human ocean uses since the mid-19th Century. What a long story – unfortunately until now, only for far too few.
    Best regards Arnd

    Like

    • Ron Clutz · June 1

      Arnd, thanks for commenting. Yes, these analyses are only tearing apart the AGW claim as it relates to CO2. They do not come to grips with why the climate does fluctuate over multi-decadal scales. As you say, the oceans are a big source of this, and human use of the seas is a factor, as yet unacknowledged or quantified.

      Like

  3. jack broughton · June 1

    Thanks for giving us this lead. The paper contains a lot of good summaries of the essential issues and makes good, clear reading. Naturally, delighted that Trump has done something useful at last. Pity he did not fully ditch AGW.

    Like

    • Ron Clutz · June 2

      Thanks Jack. Also interesting that the original text was in French, yet the clarity of thought came through in English.

      Like

  4. Michael A. Lewis · June 2

    What’s really interesting is that Big Oil is pissed! They had it all figured out to make billions of profit on the deal, and Trump pulled the plug.

    Who’s in charge here?

    Like

    • Ron Clutz · June 2

      Michael, I think it means Big Oil actually became Big Energy many years ago. They were happy to see coal undermined (pun intended), and Exxon et al. are also invested in gas and even renewables. Rent-seeking is part of their business model as much as for Enron and Tesla.

      And of course, big business sees the role of government to make regulations that hamper competitors, not to have a level playing field, as was mentioned yesterday.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s