Water Vapour Rules the Greenhouse — CO2 is Just Along for the Ride: A Sceptical Take on the Real Driver of Earth's Temperature, By Professor X
Ted Noel's February 16, 2026, piece in American Thinker drops a provocative bombshell: there are no "greenhouse gases" in the way alarmists claim. The whole concept is flawed because true "greenhouse" behaviour requires reflection — like a mirror bouncing heat back down — not mere absorption and re-radiation. And the only thing in the sky that actually reflects like that? Water, specifically in the form of clouds (liquid droplets or ice crystals). CO2, methane, and the rest? They absorb infrared photons and spit them out in all directions, with most eventually escaping to space. No reflective layer, no real trapping. Hence, "there's only one gas that actually does that: water."
Noel mocks the EPA's now-rescinded 2009 Endangerment Finding on CO2 as a "lie" with "no science to support it," calls alarmists "doomcretins," and urges ditching the term "greenhouse gas" entirely. He illustrates CO2's trace status (around 438 ppm, tiny next to water vapour's variability) with analogies like it being emoji-sized on your phone screen — real, but negligible. Clouds, he argues, dominate: overcast days keep temps stable by reflecting sunlight up and heat down; clear nights cool fast by letting heat escape. Fly above clouds, and their whiteness screams high albedo.
From a climate-sceptical perspective, this hits a nerve mainstream science often downplays or buries in caveats.
Water Vapour is Indeed the Dominant Greenhouse Player — By Far
Standard climate science (NASA, NOAA, IPCC sources) agrees water vapour is Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas and accounts for roughly 50% of the natural greenhouse effect (the one keeping us ~33°C warmer than a bare rock). Clouds add another ~25%, putting water (vapour + clouds) at 66–85% of the total effect in some estimates, versus CO2's 9–26% or ~20%. Without water vapour, the planet would freeze; it's the heavyweight.
But here's the sceptical twist: water vapour concentration isn't controlled by us — it's a feedback, not a forcing. Warmer air holds more vapour (Clausius-Clapeyron relation), so any initial warming (from whatever) ramps up vapour, amplifying the effect. Positive feedback, yes — but sceptics argue models overstate its strength or ignore negative feedbacks like enhanced precipitation removing vapour faster.
Clouds: The Massive Modeling Headache
Noel is spot-on that clouds are the real wildcard. IPCC reports repeatedly call clouds the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates. Models struggle with sub-grid processes: low-level clouds (cooling via reflection), high clouds (warming via trapping), microphysics, aerosol interactions. Inter-model spreads in cloud feedback drive huge ranges in projected warming — some models show positive (amplifying) net cloud feedback, others less so or even negative.
Recent CMIP6 improvements narrowed some gaps, but uncertainties persist: boundary-layer clouds, convective responses, latitudinal shifts. A tiny error in cloud representation (e.g., 0.9% off) can swamp CO2's radiative forcing signal. We sceptics highlight this as evidence models are tuned or unreliable for policy-level predictions — clouds could cap warming more than admitted, or low clouds might thin out and accelerate it (debated).
Does This Underplay CO2's Forcing? Yes — But That's the Point from a Sceptical View
Noel goes extreme by saying CO2 does almost nothing meaningful (just "slows some photons"). Mainstream view: CO2 is the control knob because it's a long-lived forcing we add directly — its rise drives temperature up, which pulls in more vapour (feedback) and alters clouds. Remove non-condensing GHGs like CO2, models show the greenhouse effect collapses as vapour rains out.
Sceptics counter: CO2's logarithmic effect means diminishing returns (each doubling adds ~3.7 W/m², but from low base); natural variability, solar, oceans, or underestimated negative feedbacks (iris effect, cosmic rays on clouds?) matter more. Water vapour/cloud dominance means human CO2 tweaks are minor perturbations on a system dominated by natural water cycles.
Bottom Line for Sceptics
Noel's article is polemical and oversimplifies (gases do delay outgoing radiation via absorption/re-emission, creating net downward flux), but it nails the core truth mainstream sources confirm: water vapour and clouds dwarf CO2 in raw contribution. The debate isn't whether water rules — it's whether CO2's small addition reliably tips the system into dangerous warming, or if clouds/water feedbacks self-regulate more than models predict.
Until models nail clouds without wild spreads in sensitivity, claims of "settled science" ring hollow. Water isn't just the dominant greenhouse agent — it's the reminder that Earth's climate is far more complex, buffered, and less CO2-obsessed than the headlines allow. Focus on real pollutants, adapt, and question the panic. The sky's reflective blanket has been doing fine for billions of years.
