How an underwater volcano got a "wokie" Global Warming site to inadvertently tell the truth about GW

The piece below is from an official-looking website called the "Center for Environmental Studies" at the University of Iowa.  Very concerned about the environment.  Very "woke."  But despite being a really Party-Line-spouting outfit, they've accidentally let a big secret slip:  that just maybe humans aren't responsible for more than a tiny percentage of Global Warming.  See if you can spot the slip:.

Last January a volcano erupted underwater in the Pacific Ocean. The huge eruption sprayed 55 million tons of water vapor into the stratosphere--enough to fill 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.  That vapor may cause a short-term upsurge in global warming.  

The eruption off the coast of the island nation of Tonga created an ash plume half the size of France. Because the volcano was 500 feet below sea level, molten rock turned an estimated 55 million tons of seawater into vapor--a cloud of steam that reached an altitude of 35 miles.  [Very skeptical of that part; that would be 180,000 feet, and even ice crystals only rarely get barely above 60,000 feet.]

“We’ve never seen anything like it,” said a NASA scientist who's leading a study examining the effects of the volcano.  Above-ground volcanos don’t release much water vapor but instead release sulfur dioxide, which causes a cooling effect.  But the underwater volcano created a warming effect because of the water vapor spewed into the stratosphere.

Wow.  So sulfur dioxide causes cooling, but an ash cloud half the size of France wouldn't?  Got it.

And ya say "water vapor" "created a warming effect"?  Seriously?  Cuz in grade school they told us that something like three-fourths of the Earth's surface wuz covered by...um..."ocean."  So if "water vapor" indeed creates a "warming effect," we'd have a constant warming because every day the sun constantly evaporates billions of tons of seawater into--and I know this sounds crazy--the atmosphere.

So if the water vapor kicked up by this one volcano can "create a warming effect"--because of the, y'know, "water vapor"--that would kinda suggest that all the water vapor already in the air--which is about three MILLION times more than what the volcano added--would contribute WAY more to "Global Worming" than CO2, eh?

And sure enough, Wiki (I know) reports that water vapor accounts for between 66 and 85% of the "greenhouse effect."  

A lot of this huge effect of water vapor is due to the fact that water vapor comprises, on average, about one percent of the atmosphere, compared to about four one-hundredths of one percent for CO2.  So about 25 times more water vapor in the air than CO2.  But of course you knew that.

But strangely, if you read the list of the biggest drivers of Global Warming in the U.N's "6th IPCC report on climate change," notice anything odd?

Water vapor isn't even listed.  

Now why do you suppose they omitted water vapor, which is the biggest driver of Global Warming, eh?

Say, you don't suppose it's because no one can do a THING about water vapor, so your rulers couldn't get you to destroy your economy and stop driving, so they picked something they could tell you you COULD do something about--even if that was gonna' cost you trillions, wreck your economy, stop you from driving and make steak and bacon only affordable by pols and the rich, do ya?

Nah, that's just crazy-talk, citizen.

Here's another colorful chart from the IPCC that says it's listing "Radiative forcing components."  Reasonable translation would be "Gases causing global warming."  (Link shows six charts.  This one is bottom center.) 

Again, note what "greenhouse gas" is NOT listed here either:  Water vapor.  (There's a color for "Other GHGs" but the contribution shown is only about one-third that of CO2, when water vapor should be roughly ten times larger.  But watch for bullshit artists to claim the "Other GHGs" category includes water vapor.  Then ask them for their source, and the relative contribution of water vapor. And watch the fun begin.)

Y'know, maybe some so-called "journalist" should ask John Kerry or some other alleged "expert" on Global Warming:  Is the claim in Wiki that water vapor accounts for up to 85% of the "greenhouse effect" accurate?  And if so, doesn't that make both CO2 and nitrous oxide (the newest "threat") nothing-burgers by comparison?  So that wrecking our economy won't make a measurable difference in temperature, even if we somehow managed to cut CO2 from 420 ppmv to 360 or so.  

Hmmm....