## Thursday, January 27, 2011

### Ban Ki-moon gives up fight against climate change

In November 2009, the ClimateGate erupted and many of us were convinced that the establishment of climate fear would quickly collapse. I was imagining that it would be as fast as the Velvet Revolution that began exactly 20 years earlier.

So many climate skeptics were disillusioned by the speed. Now, 14 months later, things are beginning to move at the top places. Barack Obama hasn't mentioned any climate, warming, disruption, carbon, or fossil fuels in his key annual talk - even though he was talking for a whole hour. The Guardian just brought us another dose of good news:
Ban Ki-moon ends hands-on involvement in climate change talks
The boss of the United Nations will stop his personal involvement in the battle to regulate the world climate. Instead, he will try to achieve "immediate gains" in the field of clean energy and sustainable development. Even his U.N. colleagues have apparently understood that there can't be any "deal".

Now, obviously, I have nothing whatsoever against clean or renewable energy sources. My only complaint is against huge subsidies of such things that used to be justified ideologically - by the deluded propaganda about climate disruption.
Directly relevant hot news: You may ask a question to the U.N. boss at CNN now (click)
If this propaganda really goes away, as Obama and Ki-moon indicate by their shifted attitudes, there is a hope that common sense and rational costs-and-benefits analysis will return to the energy industry and beyond.

In the 2011 State of the Union address, Obama also mentioned oil and biofuels that could replace it. That's surprising because even Al Gore has admitted that their support of biofuels was a big blunder. On the other hand, I can imagine that there will exist biofuels that actually make economic sense.

What I find important is that politicians will no longer promote nonsensical solutions by general slogans that are based on bad science, fearmongering, and intimidation referring to insane planetary emergencies. We, the climate skeptics, have been warning against such irrational attitudes and we have been proved right pretty much in all cases. First-generation biofuels as well as carbon trading has been showed to be a disaster while solar and wind power turned out to be significant economic problems in many countries such as my homeland.

(By the way, I just heard on radio that the Czech Republic is selling 40% of the world's sold carbon indulgences - if true, it is an amazing percentage for such a relatively small country.)

Well, of course, I don't believe that the politicians will completely stop doing irrational things. But the amount of this bad policymaking could simply decrease as the rats are gradually leaving the rotten and sinking bandwagon. Let us hope that many other politicians will follow in Obama's and Ki-moon's footsteps. As many more people regain their common sense and all plans to regulate carbon evaporate, almost everyone will see that the Earth is doing just fine and the climate skeptics have saved trillions of dollars.

Will they be rewarded or will they remain the silent heroes who have just saved the civilization without any greed? ;-)

1. Hi Lubos Motl,

I have started reading your blog a couple of days ago. And as I also follow the physics stackexchange a bit, where I saw that you indeed don't seem to be a crackpot, I started wondering about climate change and whether the measures taken by the european nations are justified.
Could you maybe give some links to research papers which would support your claims (I also saw that you are happy to pass on your knowledge to others - at least I hope you would be so kind in this instance)?

Well, thanks a lot. And greetings from Switzerland.

2. Clean energy, sustainable energy, just as communist as the AGW hoax.

How about we just drill for oil, and do what the Chinese are now doing, using coal to liquids technology. As the U of T 2009 study and pilot plant showed, the conversion produces diesel and gasoline, transport fuels ... at under \$30 a barrel oil equivalent.

And if you want sustainable, build nuclear power plants on a factory assembly line and reprocess the fuel. Just like the Chinese are now doing.

3. Dear Samuel,

It's also immensely vague. What papers are you exactly looking for? These 850 peer-reviewed papers about any climate topics that disagree with the "consensus"?

I am not into these pissing games. The very point of this blog is that it is *not* a set of links to other people's claims but an independent evaluation of these topics from a guy whose IQ, sorry that I am open about this important fact, sits about 30 points above the average climatologist's IQ and who has studied these issues for many years, too.

Cheers
LM

4. Excuse MY Dear Blog Writer, but you are getting really ridiculous.

First: 850 papers ... this is nothing compared to the other several thousand paper ...
Second: Not all journals are good journals. You can find peer reviewed papers on arxiv which full of wrong stuff
Thrid: Not all articles containing something like: test of alternative method etc. mean that they prove the mainstream opinion wrong.
Fourth: I can give you equally hundreds of articles which question the basic laws of general relativity .. what does that prove? right! Nothing ;)

5. Hi, unfriendly commenter,

850 is of the same order as "several thousands", even if you would have presented several thousand papers defending the AGW fear-mongering crackpottery, which you have not, but otherwise I completely agree with you:

The counting of the papers proves absolutely nothing - it was actually a point of my previous comment - and indeed, the champions of the "climate threat" hypothesis are analogous to the cranks who publish papers about their defeat of the theory of relativity.

All of them are unhinged kooks regardless of the number of pages they print. In particular, the IPCC has something like 2,495 kooks - I don't know if I have counted the exceptions correctly - and it is not hard to find and pay 2,495 kooks in a world that contains 6.9 billion people.

Cheers, LM