As the catastrophic climate narrative slumps inelegantly beneath
a prolonged lack of warming, where does it leave us? Bearing in mind that it is
not easy to come up with a higher authority than the climate – not even Vivienne
Westwood on a good day.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the C has come
tumbling off CAGW, or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as it used to
be known before options were quietly widened via the weasel word change.
So apart from a dwindling band of doomsday hopefuls we are presumably
left with AGW. Even that seems to be quietly mutating to ACC – Anthropogenic
Climate Change. Ho hum, I suppose even a furtive and long overdue change of
emphasis is probably welcome.
Where this takes us I’m not sure but I’m pretty sure we
aren’t due for a bout of institutional honesty and the sweet strains of mea
culpa issuing from the BBC, Guardian, IPCC, Defra, Greepeace, Al Gore, Ed
Davey, Ed Miliband, Lord Deben and a host of middle class poseurs of the green persuasion.
It is more likely that the new narrative will be stitched to
the old as seamlessly as a dodgy temperature graph. The new narrative will imply
that ACC is what was meant all along and AGW will turn up eventually and
meanwhile every single weather outlier will be the weirdest weather since the
last weird weather and anyone who says otherwise is some kind of flat-earth far-right
nutcase denier in the pay of Big Oil...
...or whatever.
The irony is that most climate sceptics probably have no
great problem with ACC because we could be affecting the climate in a number of
ways from land usage to atmospheric nitrogen or sulphur pollution to airborne
particulates. Most sceptics also think CO2 may have a minor effect, but nothing
remotely like the calamity proclaimed for so long by the swivel-eyed activists.
The debate may even lurch towards something delightfully rational, where uncertainty is given its rightful place in the science...
...no I’m not holding my breath for that one.
2 comments:
Trouble is that the warmist mutters never say WHICH I climate is changing! No evidence of warming for the past 18 years or so ought to be telling them something.
But if they refer to northern hemisphere climate then uppin g it a few degrees could only be beneficial.
After all, in spite of one tony Blair once predicting that "thousands" would die of AGW, I'm not aware of a single one.
But as we know dying of hypothermia is a reality every winter for many.
Graham - yes, upping the NH a few degrees would be entirely beneficial.
Post a Comment