When scrambling to explain all the cold weather people only expose their ignorance of climate science. Fortunately, they also produce statements that even those who don't understand the science see as illogical.
A tongue-in-cheek comment in my university was that if we could just get rid of the students, it would be a great place to work. Clearly, some environmentalists think if we could just get rid of all the people on the planet it would be a great place to live.
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.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. A comment from Dr. Joanne Simpson began, “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” This explains why the scam has progressed so far.
No matter what political committees try to absolve corruption of climate science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they cannot hide the complete failure of the computer models to make a single accurate prediction. Leaked emails from the CRU received media attention, but the emphasis must shift to the computer models.
All climate policy is designed to reduce atmospheric CO2, but that is not what the plants would vote for. Plant producers have added CO2 to enclosed growing environments for 100 years to enhance growth. Thank goodness there are many natural sources of CO2 and significant reductions are not possible – otherwise humans would be eliminated, as extremists want. In another unintended consequence, so would all other species.