Belief in the science of anthropogenic climate change is so embedded into Western culture that to deny it directly is pointless, even though there is a conspicuous lack of evidence that there is dangerous warming or that there is major anthropogenic input. After decades of careless or biased reporting of dubious science, with dissenting voices silenced by mockery or even legal means, the minds of the public and the mainstream media are made up. To resist the narrative is counter-productive.
In a desperate bid to rescue something from the disastrous years of her premiership Mrs May, the deposed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has committed the UK to spend well over £1,000,000,000,000 on stopping the world burning up from global warming. Like every cause she has espoused this waste of taxpayers’ money will change nothing and leave her reputation as tarnished as ever.
A true catastrophe is shaping up: the appalling mountain of money which political leaders around the world are throwing at a problem which may become urgent but is not yet a matter of urgency. I say ‘may become urgent’ because I am yet to be convinced by the science. However, since more intelligent students than I are prepared to risk their reputations on advocating drastic measures to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions, there may be cause for concern. Others, equally eminent, equally qualified, take the opposite view, pointing to the failure of any of the many predictions of dire consequences if we don’t decarbonise our civilisation back to medieval levels. At the moment those who panic are in the ascendant, but it would take a bold prophet to claim that is always going to be the case.
Money that could be used to clean up our rivers, the world oceans and the exhaust-polluted streets of our cities is being thrown away in a foolish reaction to poorly-monitored science (and, most astonishing of all, the wagging forefinger of a sixteen-year-old girl). Maybe our complacent bureaucracy is letting the world slip towards a tipping point catastrophe by ignoring the science. Or our ignorant politicians are risking a major die-off of the poor, the old and the sick by accepting politicised science without close scrutiny. Choose one. Or, if you want a political solution, choose both.
What is the political way of dealing with this dilemma? While blogs like Watts Up With That do their best to present the dire state of climate change advocacy science, science where the conclusion comes before the data, it has not altered the minds of those who believe with a religious fervour that the end is nigh. Tackling their fervent beliefs head-on is counterproductive. We wish to prevent the crisis of inadequate energy to keep our civilisation rich and productive. We also want to avoid the end of the world. Let’s be political. Let’s sit on the fence.
First, acknowledge the ‘crisis’ as it is seen by those who panic.
Here’s the science. The world is warming – the latest figures show that it has warmed about 0.4 deg C since 1979 when the satellites began to monitor temperatures, so that bit of the science is true. Well, half true, the world is warming at half the expected rate.
The computer models predict anomalous warming in the troposphere, a hotspot caused by water vapour feedback. It’s not there. The tropospheric hotspot does not exist. Let’s be perfectly clear about this. According to climate models the global temperature is only going to increase at a dangerous rate if the CO2-induced warming triggers water vapour feedback. Water vapour feedback should induce a tropospheric hotspot. Balloons and satellites have looked for the hotspot. It is not there. Without the water vapour feedback, the computer models show a warming rate that is half the accepted crisis/catastrophe value. So do the thermometers. The most accurate computer model is INMCM4, which projects an un-alarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century.
Climate crisis advocates can justly point out that it really is warming. From there they fly off into projections which are impossible to counter – they always find reasons why the models are wrong, why the theory is wrong, or why the science is wrong when it produces result counter to their need to believe in catastrophe: the world is warming and it might become dangerous. We might be swallowed by a giant mutant star goat for that matter, it’s impossible to prove a negative, but let’s address their concerns in a rational, adult manner. No, not the goat. We’re not yet ready to build space arks.
Clarify the science so we can tackle the problem whatever it turns out to be. It may be CO2; it may be other things.
First, fund research into why the water vapour feedback is not performing as the computer simulations predict. It could be (almost certainly is), that the simulations are wrong. If so, there are warming/cooling water vapour factors that are not being considered. Find out what those factors are before costing the taxpayer trillions of pounds and closing down our civilisation.
Then I’d suggest looking at a slew of possible warming/cooling factors other than CO2.