UN Secretary-General declares climate change debate ‘over’

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The certainty of politics: In a newspaper interview on Thursday UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared, without doubt, that the scientific debate on human-caused global warming “is over”.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday that his greatest achievement at the helm of the world’s biggest international organization was last year’s climate change accord in Paris, and he expressed open frustration that Republicans in the U.S. continue to obstruct President Obama and to politicize the subject. “The debate on science and the debate on politics as far as climate change is concerned is over,” Mr. Ban told The Washington Times in an exclusive interview. “Still, the Republican Party, they are not convinced.

“There should be no political consideration on this,” he said. “There should be no room for politics to get involved.” [emphasis mine]

I am so glad that this politician, not a scientist, knows so much about the climate field that he can dictate the future research of scientists. I am so glad that this politician, not a scientist, thinks he has the ability to tell skeptics to shut up. And I am so glad that this politician, not a scientist, can demand that skeptics shut up because he wants to keep politics out of science. (Note the irony and hypocrisy here.)

I find it most interesting that whenever anyone raises questions about the theory of human-caused global warming, the response by its advocates is almost never to discuss the actual data, but to tell the questioners to shut up, and to insist the debate is settled, even though the very existence of those questioners proves it is not.


  • wodun

    The debate over the politics of AGW can’t be over because all of the solutions are political ones and there is much debate about whether or not any specific proposal will accomplish what it intends to or if there are better alternatives.

    Lets not forget that the same people pushing for draconian policies now are the same people who said we should use plastic bags over paper to save the trees and should use plastic water bottles rather than drink tap water.

    Considering there are a large number of Marxists pushing AGW legislation, their intent could be the same with the constant demands to change language. With demands to change language, the intent isn’t to treat people better but to create everlasting chaos. As one word is adopted, the in-group creates a new word to replace it. This happens because there always has to be a group of people who are portrayed as enemies, or the out-group.

    With the adoption of new technology, words, products or anything else there are always early adopters and late adopters. The late adopters will always be the enemy. Not because they are literally the enemy but because they need an enemy. This is why PC words change so fast and sometimes even double back such that words that were once racist suddenly become non-racist.

    The same is true with the demands of environmentalists. As soon as everyone adopts farm fresh or localism, they will switch back to promoting big farms as being the most efficient and better for the environment. As soon as wind and solar farms are ubiquitous, they will say they kill too many birds and eat up too much land for endangered species.

    The goal isn’t to make any actual improvements with a specific policy but to constantly make demands that give the leftists more power while dehumanizing people they don’t like.

  • ken anthony

    Political control is just about complete. It is idiocy to think that rational arguments have much impact. If we don’t get control of govt. slush funds it’s game over.

    When I say slush fund the billions in pay for play is just a small part of it.

    I don’t expect we will do much of anything about it based on the evidence so far.

  • Phil Berardelli

    Nature might be about to take a hand in this muddle, with the decline in sunspots and the predictions of a new Maunder Minimum in prospect — with it a little ice age lasting perhaps a century — within the next decade or so.

    The real tragedy of this affair would be if the powers that be actually managed to put in place measures to cool the planet, and in doing so trigger the next ice age — the 21st in a series that has occurred with rough regularly for the past 2 million years. Its effects would be truly catastrophic for humanity.

  • Robert,

    What’s the best article or book dealing with data manipulation by AGW advocates.

  • Richard asked, “What’s the best article or book dealing with data manipulation by AGW advocates?”

    I am planning another post on this subject, but the person who does the best job noting this particular problem on a daily basis is Tony Heller at Real Science. Heller can be a bit rough around the edges, and he unfortunately often does not source his material as well as he should, but I haven’t yet found any of his analysis to be false or incorrect, and believe me, I have dug deep into his work to check it.

  • Wayne

    -intriguing website!
    I’m currently downloading the recent Spy Museum podcast you did on august 17th.

Leave a Reply

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