First we #Brexit and then we #Clexit

Posted: August 2, 2016 by tallbloke in government, greenblob, innovation, Politics

clexit-header

After several years of fighting, and losing, various elections, winning the EU referendum campaign has been a real tonic for me. If it had been fought on the same electoral ‘first past the post’ basis constituency by constituency, ‘the Brexit party’ would have won 70% of the seats. In my home region of Yorkshire and Humberside, where I was a Leave campaign director, it would have been a landslide, with all but a few of its 54 constituencies voting for an exit from the EU.

While Brexit is being negotiated, we are starting another campaign – Clexit. The aim is to get all nations to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. The founders, Marc Morano in the States, Christopher Monckton in the UK and Viv Forbes in Australia, have now invited me to head up the Clexit-UK campaign. I’ll have more details soon, discussions are ongoing.

Here’s the summary statement by Viv Forbes, founding secretary of the Clexit organisation.

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]

Comments
  1. erl happ says:

    Excellent. Its well and truly time to stand up,be counted and bang some heads together. The stupidity is palpable.

  2. Geoff Sharp says:

    The Clexit push is indeed warranted and perhaps the world stage is finally changing. I will be pushing this worthwhile agenda on my blog in the hope of fostering some support here in Oz.

  3. Gurgeh50 says:

    The new Philippine President has said he won’t ratify the Paris climate accord as he wants to industrialise fast and that means coal fuelled power plants.

    Needless to say a lot of hand wringing from Greenpeace etc., the same scum who destroy trial plots of “Golden” rice which will save hundreds of thousands of poor children from blindness. There should be a special place in Hell for them.

  4. When do we get ‘Clexit the Movie’? I’m ready to help fund it.

  5. Chaeremon says:

    Bank of England should worry about a Brexit boom, not a Brexit bust,
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bank-of-england-should-worry-about-a-brexit-boom-not-a-brexit-bust-2016-08-03
    No rate cut needed: U.K. economy has already been stimulated by devaluation, end of austerity.

    Well done Brexiters; next🙂

  6. tallbloke says:

    Niklas Morner just emailed me to say we can find time in the programme to launch CLEXIT at our London Conference in September.

  7. darteck says:

    tallbloke says: August 3, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    “Niklas Morner just emailed me to say we can find time in the programme to launch CLEXIT at our London Conference in September.”

    Following ‘Brexit’ there’s another agenda that pre-dates and tops ‘clexit’ for a ‘nextit’, but its with the UN and not the EU.

    Think ‘Mont-agr-exit’! The ‘Montreal agreement’ proscribes the use of refrigerant chemicals that ‘enhance’ the capture of ‘green energy’ because of an (IMHO) unsubstantiated claim that gained popular belief that the substances were the ’cause’ of ‘the ozone hole’ above the south pole. IMHO this ‘claim’ is unfounded. The ‘hole’ was there before we noticed it, or ever produced these chemicals. We just didn’t know of its existence.

    I’d like to attend the September conference in London, but personal priorities proscribe this (sometimes I think that my life isn’t my own, but I accept this). Please present a POV upon the ‘Montreal agreement’!

    Best regards, Ray.

  8. darteck says:

    darteck says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    August 5, 2016 at 2:37 am

    For pity’s sake, I didn’t even realise that I was loged-in to Word Press. I’ve not even done anything with my ‘darteck’ site yet.

    ‘darteck’ is synonymous with ‘suricat’ and Ray Dart!

    Best regards, Ray.

  9. erl happ says:

    Re Ozone Hole.https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/23-the-dearly-beloved-antarctic-ozone-hole-a-function-of-atmospheric-dynamics/

    Yes, the hole has always been there and will always be there while the continents are mostly in the northern hemisphere, Antarctica is in its present position surrounded by Ocean and the Earth rotates around the sun with its 24 hour spin angle significantly off the vertical from the plane of its orbit.

  10. suricat says:

    erl happ says: August 5, 2016 at 3:57 am

    Thanks for the link earl. Unfortunately I can’t verify your conclusion upon the chemistry, but the physical aspect of ‘altitude’ is beyond refute.

    The NH vortex ‘bottoms’ at sea level whereas the SH vortex ‘bottoms’ at ~2.8 kilometres above sea level due to the snow and ice overburden. See wiki.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole#Geography

    “It sits atop a featureless, barren, windswept and icy plateau at an altitude of 2,835 metres (9,301 ft) above sea level, and is located about 1,300 km (800 mi) from the nearest open sea at Bay of Whales. The ice is estimated to be about 2,700 metres (9,000 ft) thick at the Pole, so the land surface under the ice sheet is actually near sea level.[2]”

    For a ‘vortex’, the ‘bottom’ isn’t the ‘land surface’ per se, its the ‘surface’ that presents a ‘solid’ interface to the atmosphere. Thus, a differential of ~2.8 kilometres altitude (due to snow and ice) exists between the NH and SH poles which makes a chemical analysis between them difficult due to adiabatic, etc., temperature and pressure anomalies/differences. Not to mention the ‘weak turbine effort’ in the SH Polar Cell due to ‘smooth coupling’ at the Cell periphery by the ‘boundary region’ at sea level not generating the/an effective atmospheric turnover/overturning as in the NH Polar Cell.

    Chemists usually work their extrapolations at ‘STP’ (Standard Temperature and Pressure), but ‘atmospheric chemistry’ is more complex than this.

    We shouldn’t ‘hog’ this thread, but the/your/my ‘subject’ is most interesting to me.

    Best regards, Ray.

  11. erl happ says:

    Hi Ray,
    That term ‘vortex’ is widely used to describe different phenomena. This is a frontier area for climate science and it will help if people define their usage of terms like ‘vortex’.

    My usage puts the bottom of the vortex at the point where cold air from the mesosphere ceases its descent over the polar cap from March to October in Antarctica. The sides of the vortex are the conjunction of ozone rich air from the mid latitudes against that tongue of cold, relatively ozone free air that descends from the mesosphere as a product of high surface pressure over the ice mound and to some extent no doubt due to the fact that when a body of air ascends another body must descend. The difference in density between mesospheric air and mid latitude air gives rise to a rotating, ascending column of air that begins as the jet streams and increases in velocity as it ascends to the top of the atmosphere. Some of this ascending ozone rich air returns with the mesospheric air via a mixing process with the mesospheric air but most returns in the mid latitudes.

    This is the most powerful, most extensive and involving circulation in the atmosphere because it ascends to the top of the column whereas the ascent in the tropics is limited to the troposphere.

    Change in the polar circulation is the main driver of the ozone content of the atmosphere. Ozone absorbs infrared and heats the atmosphere. It proliferates in the winter hemisphere, drives the formation of upper air troughs that propagate to the surface as Polar Cyclones. Change in the vorticity of polar cyclones alters the distribution of atmospheric mass between the high and mid latitudes. This is observed and is referred to as the ‘annular modes’ by far and away the most influential mode of natural climate change.

    All this was known before 1970. It was no longer taught after the notion that CO2 determines surface temperature was popularised….complete bullshit designed to serve the agenda of particular interest groups. There are a lot of ‘luke-warmers’ out there who were, and are still, taken in.

    Of course that makes me look like the radical fringe. In the context of what was known and taught prior to 1970 that is a mischaracterization.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    Contrasting Brexit with Clexit, a big difference is apparent right away:

    Brexit organizers had a really easy target: undemocratic bureaucratic EU dysfunction.
    It was really simple for any common and/or educated person to understand on just about any level.

    Clexit’s not similar.

    Almost no skeptics have a handle on natural climate. In particular there’s a massive division within the community and union is not even remotely feasible because one of the groups is h*ll-bent on ensuring sun-climate truth is strictly suppressed. This is REAL human nature, so it needs to be appreciated and respected as a formidable and probably (not just possibly) fatal obstruction.

    The response of many to this challenge will be predictably over-simplistic: Enforce a party line. It won’t work. The idea of working with some of those people? Forget it. Never. So more creativity will be needed from anyone leading.

    To be really provocative:

    Almost no climate commentators (of any political stripe) are serious about understanding climate.

    I suggest the occasion calls for more frank than usual discussion because if skeptic community status quo is to remain the norm, failure of the Clexit movement looks assured.

    Brexit: Simple issues easily understood by common and/or educated people.
    Clexit: Not even people who think they’re superior have a clue. It’s a joke.

    It’s easy to see how Brexit can lead to something better: a replacement for the EU that originates in Britain and spreads eastward to replace the EU and its flaws.

    I predict that Clexit will be tactically undermined and/or sabotaged by Lukewarmist American Republicans who are dead serious about harshly and strictly suppressing climate truth. I’m confident they will go to any lengths necessary to derail Clexit. The blame for its failure can fall squarely on them, right here and now.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Very perceptive Paul. The usual Lukewarmist American Republican was on email last night trying to undermine the conference where we’re launching Clexit in the UK. Happily, some other recipients in the email chain stepped in to voice support for us.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Lukewarmist American Republican finance domineers dictate Clinton support.
    They’re the hardest core supporters of the climate agenda anywhere in the world.

    They ordered a front line campaign to aggressively convert skeptics to lukewarmists. The assumption underlying the strategy is that a firmly implemented climate agenda will bring certainty to business planning.

    This is the same hubris that infects the minds of so many powerful people who get comfortable and start to forget that in the long run it’s futile to keep going against the grain of domineering nature. Sometimes they keep pushing it further and further and it leads to their downfall.

    Sobriety Call:
    Nature can ALWAYS throw a curveball at business planning.

    Artificial engineering of certainty optics is just an illusion sold by smart people making careers as planners. They’re some of the greasiest, sleaziest f**ks you ever meet.

    A sizeable, formidable, experienced portion of the Republican political-warfare machine has been assigned to support Clinton because a few powerful people have been shown a computer model of how some greasy, sleazy planners say someone’s money is going to grow with versus without the “certainty” of a rigidly implemented global climate agenda.

    Modelers have wool over their boss-man’s eyes:
    They didn’t factor domineering nature into their models.

    An unnatural bubble is still being artificially maintained in USA. In the long run it naturally bursts, but without manual correction it has enough life to survive 2016.

    Right now China is the one player with the capacity to defeat this dark, tactical American group that’s undermining global stability for no reason other than a few powerful people believe some greasy, sleazy career-planner’s sales pitch of what some false-assumption-based models say money will do with versus without the “certainty” of a rigidly implemented global climate agenda.

    It doesn’t make sense to let these few people keep undermining global stability.

  15. suricat says:

    “That term ‘vortex’ is widely used to describe different phenomena.”

    I concur, but the common feature is the spiralling ‘inertial attraction’ of a massive object towards a ‘central atractor’ (be it a gravitational, magnetic, or electrostatic forcing).

    “This is a frontier area for climate science and it will help if people define their usage of terms like ‘vortex’.”

    Well a ‘vortex’ is a ‘vortex’, but the ‘forcing’ that created it is most important. I concur.

    “My usage puts the bottom of the vortex at the point where cold air from the mesosphere ceases its descent over the polar cap from March to October in Antarctica.”

    Surely this is just ‘seasonality’? Would it not be better to understand the ‘low atmospheric turnover’ above Antarctica?

    “The sides of the vortex are the conjunction of ozone rich air from the mid latitudes against that tongue of cold, relatively ozone free air that descends from the mesosphere as a product of high surface pressure over the ice mound and to some extent no doubt due to the fact that when a body of air ascends another body must descend.”

    Congrats! You just described the ‘Brewer Dobson circulation’ WRT “ozone rich air from the mid latitudes”, but does this extend into the mesosphere? The mesosphere acts more like an electronic semiconductor with tidal effect and photolytic chemistry. Its of great interest to atmospheric sciences because little is known about it.

    No. IMHO the polar vortexes are ‘mixing pots’ for the ‘safety valves’ between ‘climate cells’. A ‘climate cell’ with the ‘greatest circulation dynamic’ ‘bleeds’ into the next weakest cell with the ‘overspill’ occurring at the cell’s highest altitude, thus, the ‘Brewer Dobson Circulation’ from the ‘Hadley’ through to the ‘Polar’ Cell.

    BTW, “relatively ozone free air that descends from the mesosphere as a product of high surface pressure over the ice mound” is nonsensical. High ‘surface pressure’ (WRT ‘weather forecasting’) implies ‘outward (or a heavier) movement of atmosphere’. For ‘atmospheric physics’ this means ‘an inward kinetic/inertia towards the surface’. Weather and Physics are incompatible by their description of events.

    WRT “no doubt due to the fact that when a body of air ascends another body must descend”, let’s be clear on this point, this is due to the inertial forces within the totality of the Earth’s atmospheric kinetic. Not just convection alone.

    Here’s a paper I’ve started reading (yes, you’ve piqued my curiosity) that may interest you if you’ve not already read it:

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/2601/2004/acp-4-2601-2004.pdf

    So far as I’ve read, NLC are a product of PMSE. Ice falls to an altitude where it ‘floats’ on ‘water’ (as it does in nature). This is evident, with insight, from/at Fig. 1.

    I’m not sure that I’m following you well, but I’ll continue to digest the remainder of your post.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  16. erl happ says:

    Hi Ray,
    We are not on the same page. Suggest you do some thinking while looking at trace gas distribution here: http://macc.aeronomie.be/4_NRT_products/5_Browse_plots/1_Snapshot_maps/index.php?src=MACC_o-suite&l=TC

    You could also look at the distribution of ozone and see that it matches air temperature and geopotential height here: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/

    The Brewer Dobson circulation was a hypothesis Brewer, who was a student of Dobson, put forward to try and explain why ozone proliferates in the winter hemisphere. The idea was that it was created in the tropics via photolysis of oxygen and moved to the poles. Some questions arise: Nearly all of the photolysis of O2 occurs in the ionosphere above 1 hPa and what occurs in the stratosphere is like a torch that shines into a corner of a dark room. Secondly, why the winter pole?
    We know a lot more about the circulation of the atmosphere today than back in the 1950s and its reflected in the two sites that I refer to above. The first is particularly useful. The circulation below 50 hPa is towards the pole and the air is rich in ozone at that level but not so in the tropics where 50 hPa is immediately above the tropopause, very cold and with little ozone in it. . The air above 50 hPa tends to circulate towards the equator rather than away from it. There is always the possibility that the accumulation of ozone at the winter pole in winter may be due to the low incidence of photolysis at low sun angles but the problem with that mechanism is that ozone continues to proliferate after the end of the polar night.

    To appreciate the dynamics of the polar atmosphere you need to become familiar with the thermal structure in winter. This site and a spreadsheet and a lot of time is required. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

    I go into all this stuff at https://reality348.wordpress.com. This might pique your interest: https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/22-antarctica-the-circulation-of-the-air-in-august/

    This are of study is important. Natural climate change (and weather) is driven from the winter pole and Antarctica in particular. If you understand nature you don’t need witch doctors.

  17. suricat says:

    erl happ says: August 11, 2016 at 2:23 am

    “Hi Ray,
    We are not on the same page.”

    Then its pointless for me to digest ‘the remainder of your post’.

    “Suggest you do some thinking while looking at trace gas distribution here:”

    No way.

    “You could also look at the distribution of ozone and see that it matches air temperature and geopotential height here:”

    Again, no way. These sites are suspect to plausible falsification. I base my understanding upon ‘first principles’ (and their atractors [common interactions]) alone. I can’t associate myself with these links.

    “The Brewer Dobson circulation was a hypothesis Brewer, who was a student of Dobson, put forward to try and explain why ozone proliferates in the winter hemisphere. The idea was that it was created in the tropics via photolysis of oxygen and moved to the poles. Some questions arise: Nearly all of the photolysis of O2 occurs in the ionosphere above 1 hPa and what occurs in the stratosphere is like a torch that shines into a corner of a dark room. Secondly, why the winter pole?

    The “winter pole” accumulates more O3 simply because ‘more latitudes’ are placed in the ‘catchment region’ for winter. IMHO you ignore the ‘catchment area’ for Earth’s seasonal rotational/kinetic energies (also, the ‘MOC’ [Meridional Overturning Current] alters seasonally).

    That’s all I’ve time for for now. I’ll get back later.

    Best regards, Ray.

  18. dscott says:

    Are you all unemployed yet because of Brexit? Apparently not:

    Unemployment falls after Brexit

    http://order-order.com/2016/08/17/unemployment-falls-brexit/

    It seems the wish casting of increasing unemployment from the utopian elites who are supposed to be your betters has been revealed as churlish sour grapes. How does one go from a forecast of 9,500 increase in claims to a decrease of 8,600 claims, a swing of 18,100? If your accuracy is that of a weather person, then clearly the utopian economic experts are compulsive natterers who babble to hear themselves to put it nicely.

    The elites have just been exposed as self serving greedy individuals and not some glorious supporters of a noble cause called union to promote peace and prosperity.

  19. p.g.sharrow says:

    Communists and their fellow travelers, all speak from the same play book, Even George Soros. Makes you wonder who is actually directing this show…pg

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    did a quick search for “watts”, “eschen”, “mosh”, “svalg” — I suggest removing 4 occurrences of the first on page 14.

  21. oldbrew says:

    pg says: ‘Communists and their fellow travelers, all speak from the same play book, Even George Soros. Makes you wonder who is actually directing this show’

    Soros is in there somewhere among the bankers, politicians etc. pushing ‘climate action’ aka money-making schemes for the few…

    ‘Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming’

    ‘This budget item captures George Soros’s commitment of $10 million per year for three years to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection’
    http://iceagenow.info/soros-paid-al-gore-millions-push-aggressive-us-action-global-warming/

  22. Hi Rog, I just noticed this thread. Although I cannot agree with everything here, if you search my site for Paris, you will find this:

    – “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels”, as the Paris Climate Agreement says, assumes an invalid direct connection between CO2 and global temperatures.

    http://globalenergybudget.com/#Conseq

    This is not a simple ‘big saying’ there, it is something like a logical conclusion of my findings. You may be interested in HOW I get to this conclusion there.

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