It appears there’s a media blitz to recover lost momentum as the public reject claims of global warming.
An article published through Penn State University would receive a failing grade in any reputable first year climate course. It is scientifically incorrect and demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic weather mechanisms and climate patterns. Despite this, the article is used to demand dramatic action in an application of the standard fall back of environmentalists – the Precautionary Principle. The author’s approach underlines so much of the problem with the global warming/climate change debate. Strong, emotional positions are held without understanding the science. So it fails as a philosophy paper as well.
For years I've asked, "What's wrong with having global warming?" It's a question that flummoxes people swamped by nothing but disaster predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mainstream media television that have hourly "Severe Weather" or "Extreme Weather" reports. After some thought, most people say their concern is sea level rise. What they don't know is that, like CO2 induced warming, it is another falsely presented threat.
All the scares generated by the false climate science promoted by political agendas disappear from the mainstream media and are rarely heard of again. The sequence begins with identification of an issue. This occurs in several ways, including reporters scanning science journals for articles to sensationalize, or a scientist or environmental group publicizing an issue. If the story catches, they’ll push it from various angles. If it loses traction, they bring in a different scientific angle or raise the level of potential damage.