And there’s me thinking that the water vapour content of the atmosphere (typically between 0 and 3 percent) is fairly constant; whereas CO2 has already increased 40% from its pre-industrial level! Then, of course, there is the other much more obvious cause of global warming – sunspot activity! Again, I thought that any apparent correlation between it and temperature rise ceased in 1970 but, no doubt, the IPCC has been lying to me about that too!
In case you are wondering where you are, this is the insane world of AGW denial in 2011: It’s a world of supposedly-fabricated hockey sticks and “alternative” explanations for the warming (which did NOT stop in 1998 by the way) for which the evidence is all around us. Nevertheless, I should make it clear that I accept the findings of last year’s NOAA study, which concluded that the “…decline in stratospheric water vapour after 2000 should be expected to have significantly contributed to the flattening of the global warming trend in the last decade”. However, as the report also made clear, this “…does not undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change”. OK, so climate science is complicated but, this is not news so let’s just stick to historical facts shall we…?
In 1965, having accepted expert advice, US President Lyndon B. Johnson told Congress, “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through… a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.” However, in the 1970s, scientists became worried about global cooling instead because, at the time (so it turned out), the effect of anthropogenic pollution was greater than that of the (exponentially-growing) emissions of carbon dioxide.
In 1982, having not accepted expert advice, the economist Thomas Schelling and physicist Bill Nierenberg told the new US President that global warming would not happen fast enough or soon enough to warrant taking any action. Unfortunately for the Earth, Ronald Reagan believed them (and who can blame him – it was exactly what he wanted to hear!). However, within about 5 years, this advice proved to be wrong because:
(1) new Greenland ice core data showed that climate changes were not always slow;
(2) the hole in the ozone layer showed that mere humans can affect the global climate; and
(3) Jim Hansen testified to Congress that AGW had started and climate change was something we should be worried about (if for no other reason than the inertia in the climate system).
The fossil fuel lobby was certainly worried, but for all the wrong reasons, so they founded the Global Climate Coalition with the express purpose of debunking the climate science that was now threatening their entire business model. However, in 1989, having totally misrepresented Hansen to the White House, the denialist movement really got started – and no-one and nothing was too big or too important to be attacked, discredited, or sued. It is therefore an historical fact – not mere supposition – that four pre-eminent Cold War physicists with no communists to fight, teamed up with the fossil fuel lobby, to fight their new enemy – “alarmist” environmentalists.
However, 3 out of 4 of these archetypal “mad scientists” are now dead so, who is leading the new “Warmist” War today? Good question – one I intend to answer (but not here you will be pleased to know). One thing is clear though, the credulous mass media continues to give “equal time” to contrarian views in a “debate” about global warming that should be over: Arrhenius predicted it in 1896; Hansen detected it in 1988; and Ben Santer attributed it to human activity in 1995. However, because nothing in science is really ever 100% certain (e.g. the sun might not come up tomorrow – it might explode overnight), denialists have tried to convert residual scientific uncertainty into reasonable public doubt. But this is not reasonable doubt, it is unreasonable doubt; and it verges on mass hypnosis – although the people of Uganda are under no illusion about what is happening… When will people in “the West” wake up and see that the delicious apple they have been given – and are eating – is actually a rotten onion?
So, 1995 should have been the end of the story but, mainly due to a Republican-dominated Congress in the late Clinton era, it wasn’t. Instead we are now living in what geologists have already dubbed as the early Anthropocene epoch; although the outcome is still in our hands. So what are we doing about it? Well for some reason, to use an analogy from “The Matrix“, we are still debating whether to swallow the blue pill or the red pill. However, whatever you chose to do, remember this is not myth, fiction, or hoax; this is history – a reality that will not change; however much you deny it.
In 1987, the Brundtland (WCED) Report defined sustainable development as “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs…” Therefore, I dread to think what our grandchildren will say about us; unless we pull our heads out of the sand and our fingers out of our… As is on record, it is already 1 Celsius warmer than it was 150 years ago. So, just how warm will it have to get before you denialists will accept that human activity is changing our climate? How many countries will have to be flooded by rising sea levels? How much desertification will it take? What percentage loss in crop yields? How many wars started over access to food or water? How much consequential mass migration?
P.S. The “water vapour is to blame” myth (and all the others) have been debunked by peer-reviewed scientific research, whereas all Fred Singer et al have ever done is come up with plausible-sounding arguments (also known as “lies“); and generally got them published in less-scrupulous places where (unfortunately) many more credulous people would read and believe them.