UN head calls off sky-dragon slayingRichard Treadgold | January 29, 2011
‘Personal mission’ abandoned
No possibility of a ‘single grand deal’
Those unconvinced of the possibility of catastrophic global warming caused by human activity could, perhaps, be forgiven for relaxing their guard a little.
Everywhere you look, there are signs that the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) has been defeated or is in the process of being defeated.
From the revelations of Climategate, where the venal motivations and cynical manipulations of leading climate scientists were made embarrassingly public, to the geological history of the last 5 million years of temperature (which shows a slow decline, meaning the modest modern rise is not a bit unprecedented), mounting evidence of severe quality problems with the surface instrumental temperature record, evidence of declining SSTs and surface air temperatures, no evidence of acceleration in sea-level rise, no increase in ocean acidification or bleaching of coral reefs, natural cycles reported as well capable of accounting for late-20th century warming and strong support for a solar influence on cloud formation moderated through intergalactic cosmic rays, not to mention changing results from opinion surveys around the world, it is beyond doubt that support for the CAGW hypothesis, based almost entirely on human emissions of the minor greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, is evaporating.
Victory for climate realism
The latest sign that, in response to the science, the political climate is also changing was last Thursday, when Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the UN, announced in the Guardian that he is
“ending his hands-on involvement with international climate change negotiations.”
This is the same United Nations secretary-general “who made global warming his personal mission.” So if “fighting the climate” is too hard for the world’s top bureaucrat, it must be out of the question indeed! Time for all of us to stop attempting the impossible.
The Guardian story attempts a positive slant, saying this is “not a failure” and Ban’s disengagement is “a sign of confidence in the negotiation process.”
But abandoning a “personal mission” is exactly the failure that it sounds, and turning away from changing the climate, whatever reasons are given for doing so, implicitly acknowledges the futility of trying to change it. We can rejoice at this development.
Infiltration by activists is complete
But this is no time for somnolence. Now is the time to be extra wakeful, to take special care to see what is happening. When our guard goes down, the enemy can advance.
Take careful note of the final paragraph in the Guardian story:
“The phase the negotiations are going into now is one more of rule-making, rather than heads-of-state engagement,” said Jennifer Morgan, who directs the climate and energy programme at the World Resources Institute in Washington. “It is just in a different phase than it was before, and the fact that Cancún was the moderate success that it was allows it to carry on the process in the way that it normally does with ministers and officials.”
Bureaucrats plot extra chatfests
The people who want to change (or ‘save’) the world are in control of the process by which that control may be achieved. It doesn’t matter what their leaders may say or what the mass media my choose to tell their fellow citizens; it only matters that they can schedule an extra meeting in Bangkok in April to continue the negotiations, and so they do schedule one.