I have previously maintained that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scare resembles the cholesterol scare that probably reached its peak in the 1970s and 80s. No government agency will announce that cholesterol is neither good nor bad; there will be for a long time a slow leakage into public consciousness that new studies show the whole thing to be based on false evidence.
Traditionally people have been advised to reduce animal fats, but the biggest ever study has shown they do not increase the risk of stroke, heart disease or diabetes. However, trans fats, found in processed foods such as margarine, raise the risk of death by 34 per cent in less than a decade….
“Trans fats have no health benefits and pose a significant risk for heart disease, but the case for saturated fat is less clear.
“That said, we aren’t advocating an increase of the allowance for saturated fats in dietary guidelines, as we don’t see evidence that higher limits would be specifically beneficial to health.”
The story continues:
The “vilification” of saturated fats dates back to the 1950s when research suggested a link between high dietary saturated fat intake and deaths from heart disease. But the study author looked at data from only six countries, and chose to ignore data from a further 16 that did not fit with his hypothesis.
The new research found no clear association between higher intake of saturated fats and conditions such as coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, or type 2 diabetes.
An excellent article argues that it received official support from Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in the 1970s. By 1992 concern for emissions was firmly established in the Rio Summit, Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and by 1997 these concerns were instantiated in the Kyoto Protocols, which called for significant reductions of fossil fuel use in advanced economies, and which ignored comparable use in China and India.
Thus, if we take 1970 as the year in which the anthropogenic global warming scare really started – in that it received the support of a serious government – and if we assume that the scare will run 55 years, more or less, then it should start to be treated as a form of scientific rubbish in the mainstream media by about 2025. Only another ten years to go.
This leads me to a further reflection on the passage of time, because climate variability can only be measured over significant periods of time. One science writer, Colin Tudge, argued that the shortest period in which one should think about climate is 1000 years.
Tudge wrote in 1997, before the hounds of AGW correctness were in full cry. It is instructive to read books written before the scare reached its apogee. It was through Tudge’s book I first became aware that for the last 30 million years atmospheric CO2 has been diminishing, and the inferred cause is the rise of the Himalayas as the Indian and Asian tectonic plates collided.The interaction of monsoon rains, which contain dissolved atmospheric CO2, and the reaction of CO2 with exposed limestone, cause CO2 to be progressively leached out of the atmosphere. I have read this hypothesis about global CO2 reduction in other places as well.
The time frame over which CO2 has been leeched from the atmosphere is 30 million years, during which the earth has entered increasingly severe and long lasting ice ages. We are in the middle of one such ice age now, only we are in the last stages of an interglacial warming period, which so far has lasted about 10,000 years
So what is your time frame to be?
Since 30 million years, since the Himalayas first were pushed up?
Since 10,000 years, since the end of the last ice age?
Since 1850, when the latest mini-ice age ended?
Since 1970, when you or your parents went to university?
One’s idea of “climate change” is profoundly biased to the extremely short time frames of human lifespan. It is hardly surprizing that our perceptions are distorted.