UN head calls off sky-dragon slaying

sky dragon

‘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.

Views: 54

18 Thoughts on “UN head calls off sky-dragon slaying

  1. Andy on 29/01/2011 at 6:40 pm said:

    I think it is wishful thinking that Ban-Ki Moon is backing away from climate change.
    He has bigger fish to fry.

    The world’s current economic model is an environmental “global suicide pact” that will result in disaster if it isn’t reformed, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, warned today.

    Ban said that political and business leaders need to embrace economic innovation in order to save the planet.

    “We need a revolution,” he told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on how best to make the global economy sustainable. “Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete.”


  2. Richard C (NZ) on 29/01/2011 at 7:44 pm said:

    “rule-making” – don’t dictocrats love that?

    Ironic I think, that States are having to pillage climate change budgets for very uncertain future unprecedented risks in order to deal with real events now.that are repeats of past events.

    That climate is cyclical and natural is anathema to the CAGW scare but the public has been deprived of the slew of science contrary to the the IPCC’s 90% anthropogenic assertion, that has been emerging since the UN AR4 2007 report and especially in 2010.

    Barry Brill’s article “Which ‘climate science’ does Minister Smith accept?” sums up the situation well. It would seem, according to Nick Smith, that not only did scientific climate research stop subsequent to 2007 but that human scientific knowledge of the forces at work in our solar system was made redundant at that time.


  3. Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2011 at 8:40 am said:

    The Sky Dragon has a competitor.- natural cyclic processes.
    Skeptical paper accepted for presentation at GCGW (Global Conference on Global Warming) Lisbon, Portugal, July 201‏1

    The paper is “C curves and the Global Warming phenomenon”. Summary from author Ritesh Arya [aryadrillers@gmail.com] below. Presumably, the final paper will include clarifying graphics

    The paper for the first time shows actual geological evidence to show global warming is a 100% natural cyclic process and man and his activities have no role in enhancing or reducing the cyclic process.

    The proposal highlights the discovery of paleo climatic signatures by Dr Arya carved on batholiths of Ladakh Indian Himalayas due to climate change mainly induced due to global warming and cooling since time immemorial and tends to redefine global warming as part of a natural cyclic process responsible for transporting various materials deposited during global cooling times.


    The author was able to discover 8 such cycles and 1 half intermittent cycle. Actually after every four cycles of 1176 years we have a half cycle of 588 years. Beauty of these cycles is uniformity in thickness and size. If 10,000 years is bench mark then each C cycle represents a time of about 1176.47 years roughly and each global maximum(marked by massive flash floods, cyclones and sea level rise will be around 500-600 years respectively.


    Looks like all the scary stories have happened before. The Sky Dragon has got some explaining to do.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2011 at 10:38 am said:

      Another study for the Sky Dragon to explain
      New paleo reconstruction shows warmer periods in Alaska over the past 3000 years

      Posted on January 29, 2011 by Anthony Watts

      For those worried about tundra melt and methane outgassing, this study might dampen those worries a bit. A new peer-reviewed study by Clegg et al. demonstrates that modern global warming is significantly less than the global warming experienced in the higher latitudes, specifically Alaska, during the summers of the last 3,000 years. It demonstrates that the Current Warm Period (CWP) is not unprecedented, at least for Alaska. The authors suggest a tie in to solar variability.


  4. Alexander K on 30/01/2011 at 9:47 am said:

    Ban Ki Moon’s ideas about how the world should be run seem to be for all of us to do a rerun of the old Marxist dream that was East Germany but disguised as ‘sustainability’; how do snesible adults even listen to his ravings is beyond me.
    Smoky, inadequate cars, shortages of everything, poor housing, nutrition, community spies everywhere and brutal border guards that shoot on sight, anyone? As ever, the elites such as Ban Ki Moon will be above all that, of course, and live in their own luxurious enclaves with proper food and luxury goods in abundance.
    The UN has outlived whatever use it once had!

  5. Andy on 30/01/2011 at 10:38 am said:

    O/T, but did anyone see the Horizon doco “Science under Attack” featuring Sir Paul Nurse (President of the RS)?

    Luboš Motl has the full video on his website


    This story has been doing the rounds on the blogs.

    Motl uses some fairly colourful language to describe his views on the doco.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2011 at 11:36 am said:

      It seems to be an alarmist PR tactic to studiously avoid detail and exactitude in preference for bland vagueness when better explanations are staring them in the face. This allows non-specialists to make outrageous claims in a field outside their specialty while maintaining an aura of credibility as Sir Paul Nurse has done. Our NZ equivalent is Sir Peter Gluckman and the narrative is similar..

      I have more respect for those such as Gandalf in the NZ Herald or even Gareth Renowden that at least make an attempt to introduce from time to time an element of detail with a modicum of scientific support. Their problem though is that they always fall short of doing the complete analysis.

      Gandalf is now touting the underlying quadratic in the temperature trend as evidence of the CO2/temp correlation which is compelling but that does not hold up prior to about 1850 and doesn’t explain the more recent anthropogenic emissions.

      Gareth Renowden rightly took Don Easterbrook to task over the present value of a graph in an effort to shoot down Don’s assertion that there were over 9000 years warmer than present over the last 10,000 years. What Gareth conveniently omitted was that using his own reasoning and making a correction to better represent the present, there were still more than 5790 years warmer than present over the last 10,000 years.

      They are all seeing the “long-term” trend in atmospheric/ocean temperature and ocean heat content (thanks to Gavin Schmidt) but they cannot bring themselves to address recent points-of-inflexion in those same metrics. We are susceptible to to confirmation bias but that does not mean it has to be a normal mode of operation.

    • I didn’t know this. Thank you for the well-written overview, Richard. Your concluding sentence is pithy and wise; it deserves a wide audience.

    • Andy on 30/01/2011 at 1:29 pm said:

      O/T again, sorry, but Matt Flaherty (commenting here recently) has written a piece fairly aimed at you, Richard T


    • Andy, advising of a refutation of our writing could never be off-topic! Thanks.
      Feel free to comment over there, everyone!
      I’ll shortly answer the guts of his arguments here.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2011 at 1:52 pm said:

      In the case of the Easterbrook issue, it must be remembered that comparing a paleo temp reconstruction with meteorological temps is an apples and oranges exercise and that the figures I came up with were using GRs reasoning but only with the reconstruction data. I’m in communication with GR (a little reluctantly) in the HT “Core blimey, Easterbrook’s at it again” comments in regard to this.

      In the case of the underlying quadratic trend of the the temperature record, that trend can be clearly seen in the Scafetta paper up to the present but he assumes a continuation of the quadratic trend in his forecasts. I haven’t got around to identifying his justification for that.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2011 at 2:42 pm said:

      Scafetta doesn’t actually provide any basis for a continuation of the underlying quadratic trend, he just says “if” the 60 year cycle repeats as it did since 1650, the successive 60 year cycles, 1880-1940, 1940-2000 can be used to make a forecast to 2060.

      I’ll be keeping an eye out for astronomical/celestial support for a continuation of what so many are predicting (including geologists) merely by projecting a trend because although I have previously subscribed to that method, I’m no longer convinced.

      The problem with the science is that although the astronomical correlations are clear, the cause mechanism is not. Ironic really because the celestial hypothesis is much like AGW but with better correlations.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2011 at 3:10 pm said:

      He does make an each way bet in his forecasts by projecting the 60 year cycle but without the underlying quadratic. This makes for a deep minimum around 2030 whereas temp levels with the underlying trend included stay relatively plateaued until 2035 then rise markedly by about 1.2C by 2060.

    • Andy on 30/01/2011 at 1:40 pm said:

      One of the interesting points in the Horizon doco was the blind acceptance by Sir Paul Nurse of “Mike’s Nature Trick to Hide the Decline” (aka the Divergence Problem)

      On this interesting thread on Simon Singh’s blog (recently taking pot shots at Delingpole), Bishop Hill pops up in the comments several times to critique this (not surprising since he is the author of the Hockey Stick Illusion).

      Even more interesting to me is that Paul Dennis of UEA also comments, agreeing with BH. Dennis holds a senior position in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA, though not in the CRU.

      There are also discussions regarding positive feedbacks and cloud albedo.
      You really get the impression that guys like Singh (I did really enjoy his book Fermat’s Last Theorem) haven’t really looked at the science behind AGW at all.


  6. Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2011 at 10:45 am said:

    nigelj on the Paul Nurse HT post:-

    “Good article. Fact is some very powerfull and ruthless interests are aligned against AGW. All we can do is refute them loudly and often, on the science, in an honest, balanced way. Reality is the best refutation and reality is catching up with the sceptics fast, like 2010s temperatures.”

    I wonder if he’s checked out Jan 2011 temperatures?

    UAH prelim – January temp may be below normal globally


    • Andy on 30/01/2011 at 11:11 am said:

      Some interesting observations on the 2010 records too:

      Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade.

      I asked the Met Office to comment on what seems like yet another embarrassing example of juggling with the figures. It denied the charge and I shall report on its lengthily evasive reply, once the GWPF has had a more considered response from Mr Hirst.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2011 at 11:56 am said:

      The Met Office explanation for those “adjustments” will make make a good bookend for NIWA’s adjustment explanations but will have greater consequences I’m think..

      The problem that the alarmists have that has been pointed out elsewhere is that they can extract additional warming from the metrics by nefarious means for only so long and inevitably they will discover for themselves the principle of diminishing returns. That will be exacerbated by any cool phase from now on but they might get lucky around 2035 if projection of the underlying quadratic holds true.

  7. Clarence on 03/02/2011 at 4:51 pm said:

    Ban-Ki Moon’s senior aide advised the Guardian that there was no longer any expectation of a global agreement within the next few years, and it was clear that there would be no extension of the Kyoto Protocol.

    Meantime, President Obama completed his entire State of the Union speech without once mentioning the “C” word. And his Climate Czar, Carole Browning, has resigned – without being replaced.

    India now says at least 44% of warming is caused by solar activity. And all European Carbon markets have been suspended indefinitely.

    What a week!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation