What is salient is not important. What is important is not salient. The media turns us away from the issues that will determine the course of our lives, and towards topics of brain-melting irrelevance.
This year's wildfires are bad. Climate change will make future ones worse | Anthony LeRoy Westerling
This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.
Arctic sea ice covered a smaller area last winter than in any winter since records began. In Siberia, an anthrax outbreak is raging through the human and reindeer populations because infected corpses locked in permafrost since the last epidemic in 1941 have thawed. India has been hammered by cycles of drought and flood, as withering heat parches the soil and torches glaciers in the Himalayas. Southern and eastern Africa have been pitched into humanitarian emergencies by drought. Wildfires storm across America; coral reefs around the world are bleaching and dying.
Throughout the media, these tragedies are reported as impacts of El Niño: a natural weather oscillation caused by blocks of warm water forming in the Pacific. But the figures show that it accounts for only one-fifth of the global temperature rise. The El Niño phase has now passed, but still the records fall.
Eight months ago in Paris, 177 nations promised to try to ensure the world’s average temperature did not rise by more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial level. Already it has climbed by 1.3C – faster and further than almost anyone predicted. In one respect, the scientists were wrong. They told us to expect a climate crisis in the second half of this century. But it’s already here.
If you blinked you would have missed the reports, but perhaps the most striking aspect of the Democratic platform (the party’s manifesto) approved in Philadelphia last week was its position on climate change. Hillary Clinton’s campaign now promises a national and global mobilisation “on a scale not seen since World War II”. She will seek to renegotiate trade deals to protect the living world, to stop oil drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic, and to ensure the US is “running entirely on clean energy by mid-century”.
Though boasting of his wealth and power, Trump poses as the friend of the common citizen and enemy of corporate capital
There are some crashing contradictions in the platform. To judge by one bizarre paragraph, the Democrats believe they can solve climate change by expanding roads and airports. It boasts about record sales in the car industry and promises to cut “red tape”, which is the term used by corporate lobbyists for the public protections they hate. But where it is good it is very good, reflecting the influence of Bernie Sanders and the nominees he proposed to the drafting committee.
Donald Trump, on the other hand – well, what did you expect? Climate change is a “con-job” and a “hoax” that was “created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”. His manifesto reads like a love letter to the coal industry. Coal, it says, “is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource”. He will defend the industry by rejecting the Paris agreement, stopping funds for the UN’s climate change work, ditching President Obama’s clean power plan and forbidding the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide.
What’s most alarming about the platform is that Trump didn’t write it: the deranged and contradictory bluster of the Republican party leadership is a collective effort. But at least it clears something up. Though boasting of his great wealth and power, he poses as the friend of the common citizen and the enemy of corporate capital. On every significant issue in the manifesto, corporate capital wins. To read it is to discover how the land lies and where the lies land.
Incidentally, Trump’s executives don’t share his belief that climate change is a hoax. His golf resort in Ireland is seeking permission to build a wall – not to keep out Mexicans, but to defend his business from rising sea levels, erosion and storm surges caused, the application says, by global warming. If you can buy your way out of trouble, who cares about the other 7 billion?
It’s not that the media failed to mention what the two platforms said about humanity’s existential crisis. But the coverage was, for the most part, relegated to footnotes, while the evanescent trivia of the conventions led the bulletins and filled the front pages. There are many levels of bias in the media, but the most important is the bias against relevance.
In Britain, the media largely failed to hold David Cameron to account for his extravagant green promises and shocking record as prime minister. His successor, Theresa May, has made some terrible appointments, but the new climate change minister, Nick Hurd, an adult among her pet buffoons, is an interesting choice as he seems to understand the subject. The basic problem, however, is that the political costs of failure are so low.
To pretend that newspapers and television channels are neutral arbiters of such matters is to ignore their place at the corrupt heart of the establishment. At the US conventions, to give one small example, the Washington Post, the Atlantic and Politico were paid by the American Petroleum Institute to host a series of discussions, at which climate science deniers were represented. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the purse is mightier than the pen.
Why should we trust multinational corporations to tell us the truth about multinational corporations? And if they cannot properly inform us about the power in which they are embedded, how can they properly inform us about anything?
If humanity fails to prevent climate breakdown, the industry that bears the greatest responsibility is not transport, farming, gas, oil or even coal. All of them can behave as they do, shunting us towards systemic collapse, only with a social licence to operate. The problem begins with the industry that, wittingly or otherwise, grants them this licence: the one for which I work.
• A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com. Twitter: @georgemonbiot
People don’t talk about how global warming has stopped, paused or slowed down all that much any more – three consecutive hottest years on record will tend to do that to a flaky meme.
But there was a time a few years ago when you couldn’t open your news feed without being told global warming had stopped by some conservative columnist, climate science denier or one of those people who spend their waking hours writing comments on stories like this.
The issue at hand was one of the multiple measurements used by scientists to monitor the state of the planet – the globally averaged temperature.
Depending on which particular set of data you looked at, and how you calculated trends, there was an argument that temperature rises had slowed over a period of about 15 years.
Global warming 'hiatus' doesn't change long term climate predictions – study
When deniers and contrarians talked about this “slowdown” the implication was that somehow, the laws of physics had suddenly changed and loading the atmosphere with CO2 might not be a problem any more.
As I argued three years ago, this global warming pause was never really a thing.
Despite all the other indicators of global warming showing business as usual – sea-level rise, temperature extremes, glacier melt, species movements, ocean heating, permafrost melt – the unhealthy fixation on one aspect, the average temperature of the globe, stuck firm.
But scientists reacted to the public commentary in the only way they know how. They started to study this “pause” to find out what might be going on. They published scores and scores of papers in academic journals.
This, in turn, fed a narrative that in the public eye that the fundamentals of human-caused climate change were in doubt when, in fact, none of the credible studies found this to be the case.
Some argued the pause did not exist at all, others looked at the role of the oceans, the trade winds, greenhouse gases, volcanic eruptions or even the way ship thermometers recorded the water temperatures (and then how scientists accounted for the different methods).
But many scientists agreed too that the wobble in the temperature was well within the bounds of what’s called “decadal variability” – the natural ups and downs in the climate system that are superimposed on top of the warming caused by burning fossil fuels.
As the contrarian talking point went, the existence of different studies coming to different conclusions was proof enough that policy makers should wait rather than act.
Breitbart's James Delingpole says reef bleaching is 'fake news', hits peak denial | Graham Readfearn
In one paper that appeared in the journal Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, three researchers argued that the scientific community had unwittingly been distracted by the claims of global warming contrarians.
Now a new study in the leading journal Nature has tried to reconcile the differences between the various pause studies and make suggestions about what went wrong.
There was not a clear and agreed definition of what a pause was and if it was consequential. Scientists didn’t always communicate nuances clearly.
“In a time coinciding with high-level political negotiations on preventing climate change,” write the authors from Switzerland’s Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, “sceptical media and politicians were using the apparent lack of warming to downplay the importance of climate change. It is easy to paint a controversial picture, but as often the devil is in the detail.”
Just to be clear, this is was never about whether or not the threat from global warming caused by burning fossil fuels was in doubt for a while a few years ago. It wasn’t.
Indeed, the Nature paper concludes that out of all the studies, the community is “more confident than ever” that human activity is now dominating the warming of the planet.
But I’ve asked several leading climate scientists for their take.
Dr James Risbey, a senior research scientist at CSIRO who has co-written an accompanying commentary in Nature, told me: “It never hurts to go back and see how we did.”
But he said: “A short-term trend was too blunt an instrument to speak directly to our confidence in climate change anyway, but its overall relevance is that it helped us to explain the bumps along the way.”
The main lesson … is to be highly sceptical of narratives pushed by so-called climate scepticsStefan Rahmstorf
The Penn State University climate scientist Prof Michael Mann (he of the hockey stick graph) expected the Nature paper would gain attention because of the high profile of the journal and that it was talking about the “faux pause”.
But in an email he wrote there were no real “bombshell” findings in the Nature paper.
“The work of many groups, including our own, has shown that [climate] models and observations are consistent in terms of long-term warming, and that this warming – and recent extreme warmth – can only be explained by human activity, namely the burning of fossil fuels,” he said
Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: “I think the main lesson to be learnt from this discussion, by scientists, the media and the public alike, is to be highly sceptical of narratives pushed by so-called climate sceptics.”
Rahmstorf was a co-author on a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters in April which found neither the claimed “pause” nor the recent spikes in global temperature were outside the bounds of how the climate should be expected to react when it is loaded with extra greenhouse gases.
He added: “Global temperature is a noisy data set due to natural short-term variability, and the debate was all about the noise and not about any meaningful change in the global warming signal. Let me add that understanding the precise nature of this short-term variability is of course a very interesting science question, and work done on the so-called ‘hiatus’ has certainly improved our understanding of that a lot.
“Incidentally, when in the journal Science in 2007 we pointed to the exceptionally large warming trend of the preceding 16 years, which was at the upper end of the [climate] model range, nobody cared, because there is no powerful lobby trying to exaggerate global warming.
“And of course in our paper we named natural intrinsic variability as the most likely reason. But when a trend at the lower end of the model range occurs it suddenly became a big issue of public debate, because that was pushed by the fossil fuel climate sceptics’ lobby. There is an interesting double standard there.”
Prof Matt England, of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, is another scientist to have carried out research in response to the “hiatus” and found that a change in the strength of trade winds was also a factor in holding temperatures down.
Trump's potential science adviser William Happer: hanging around with conspiracy theorists | Graham Readfearn
“Yes, the post-2000 slowdown was totally real,” he said. “Just like the acceleration in surface warming between 1980 and 2000 was totally real. It’s called decadal variability, and it’s superimposed on the long-term warming trends. Studying the physical mechanisms giving rise to decadal variability is an important component of the work we do, and will continue regardless of definitions of surface warming slowdowns and accelerations.”
So what to make of it all?
The short version is that global warming didn’t stop, scientists knew global temperatures would wobble around and climate scientists aren’t always the best communicators.
But also, to paraphrase Stefan Rahmstorf, climate sceptics are not really sceptics at all.