Let's have a little game here. I call it:
How to spot someone willfully ignorant about climate change!
Step 1: Do they assume that abnormal cool weather is a counterindication to global warming?
Check.
Step 2: Do they cite sources of questionable provenance?
Well, you linked to the Sun, so yeah. Check.
Step 3: Do they not read the source they cite?
From the article:
Snowfall is not uncommon during winter in the region but this cold snap is particularly late in the season
So, another check there. We're 3 for 3!
Step 4: Do they cite sources with easily misunderstood graphs?
Okay, this is where things get tricky.
You cite this graph:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Scien ... eriods.jpgYou say it indicates that today's climate anomaly is nothing new, that humanity has lived through hotter periods in Earth's history. Now, a few issues here: One, that graph covers a period of 5000 years, when the period we're actually living in only accounts for about 50 years, taking up a little less than the last hundred-year span.
Two, that specific graph has a glaring flaw which is not apparent from the graph alone: It only describes a local temperature curve, not a global one.
Globally speaking, that period in history was actually colder than today's climate.
Step 5: Do they misunderstand or misrepresent the results of climate change?
We could grow grapes in Scottland again.
Greenland would become farmable.
Both of those things might be true. But, what about the rest of the planet? If you can grow grapes in Scotland, what can you grow in Italy or Spain? Can you still live in areas like Pakistan, or Syria, or North Africa?
So, check. 5 for 5!
TFLY, small hint for you: Climate and Weather are not interchangeable.