* 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.
-------------
See also:
