I think you need to review the definitions of "global" and "local" before you're allowed to comment on this topic.
And,
for your reading enjoyment...
If we can be serious and have a rational discussion for a moment -- I realize that excludes Parser from the conversation, but every cloud has a silver lining -- my questions and criticisms are prompted by the changing and/or inaccurate predictions that have been presented over the years as "accepted science," etc., and thus are supposed to be immune from questions and criticisms.
In line with that, my posting of the information about the Great Lakes was not just because I saw a random case of cold weather. I realize "global" means "global" and "climate" isn't "weather." (Not all the warming alarmists do, of course, but that's another topic).
I was struck by the story about the Great Lakes region because that's a region that previously was singled out by the warming advocates as one that would be adversely affected by warming. Unless you put the Union of Concerned Scientists in the same bag with Al Gore as a source that is to be ignored when it's wrong. (Frankly, I have long thought the UCS was a bogus source, but again, that's another topic).
What I'm talking about isn't science. It's logic and common sense. Hypothetical example: If Joe Blow cites a reduction in the arctic ice as evidence of global warming, Joe Blow can't ignore an increase in antarctic ice as irrelevant and Joe sure as hell can't pass of an increase in arctic ice as irrelvant.
When high-ranking IPCC scientists resign under protest because their work is being manipulated and misrepresented to show something it simply doesn't show, that's not irrelevant.
When models that are touted as definitive proof turn out to be wrong, they can't be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
My position always has been that I lack the training and information to make an informed judgment on the science, but I have seen enough snake oil sold to recognize the signs. I have never said the climate isn't changing, and I have never denied that human activity has a role in it. I have questioned the practicality and efficicacy of some of the measures proposed to deal with the perceived problems, and I have questioned why so much effort is being devoted to preventative measures that are highly unlikely to make a substantive difference instead of to measures that will help deal with the results of climate change.
