by John Grimaldi
“In the good old summertime,” as the song goes, you can expect a heat wave or two in certain parts of the country. Indeed, summer is the warm season. It’s the norm. And, come November and December it will be chilly and downright cold in many parts of the country. But there are those who seek to politicize the natural order of climate on Earth.
Climatologist Judith Curry was what some might call a global warming alarmist who ultimately came to the conclusion that climate change is not what it is claimed to be; it is not an end-of-the-world disaster in the making. As she put it in a recent interview with news correspondent John Stossel, “I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star. Flown all over the place to meet with politicians. [But] like a good scientist, I investigated [and found] that part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.”
Curry went on to tell Stossel that “the origins [of climate change] go back to the … U.N. environmental program [and was motivated] by anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”
In an article published on the BizNews website, she noted that “It’s very far from gloom and doom. People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system. If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very, very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory very much.”
Confirming Dr. Curry’s assessment are two prominent climate scientists, Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). According to The Epoch Times, they have gone on record to say the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules to cut CO2 emissions “grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.”
Professors Happer and Lindzen went on to note that “all of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Furthermore, their EPA testimony noted that “the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider the fact that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.” They went on to point out that “increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas. Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and benign warming in temperature.”