Don,
With all due respect, the "religious" - "believers" canard is becoming a little hackneyed in the climate debate. It's not about "belief", it's about empirical evidence. That a majority of scientists in the varied fields associated with climate work from the basis of evidence is clear...it's not a matter of faith.

The other tack that skeptics have adopted of late is accusing climate scientists and those who glean guidance from them as some sort of elite, while skeptics represent the common man. Both the "believers" and the "elitist" titles are merely strategies that skeptics have employed to diminish the veracity of the science.

Here's a snapshot of the warmest year in the US....these events are impacting lives in that country, and they are bearing out projections from "scientists".

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/26/1375081/top-ten-us-weather-events-of-2012

Just released by Vail Resorts Public Relations Office

Since the ski season began, Beaver Creek has received 146 inches of snow, and 103 inches this month alone making it the snowiest December on record. Vail follows close behind with 137 total inches of snow or nearly 12 feet. Breckenridge and Keystone are enjoying the third and fourth snowiest December in the past eight years, respectively, as up to five feet of snow has bestowed those two resorts.

Last year was the worst ski season on record at Vail, this shaping up to be the best. But you don't know weather like that just described by Poirot is variable.

What is known is that since 1995 1/3 of all the man made CO2 ever made has been released into the atmosphere but global "warming" over that period has effectively flat lined when according to all the AGW models the temperature should have continued to rise significantly.

That is the critical point. The AGW models hypothesise CO2 triples the AGW effect of water vapour but on the last 17 years results CO2 would appear to be acting as dampener and reducing the AGW effect of water vapour by 50%.

Choosing random weather events to prove your point reminds me of the Catholic Church using the random miracles of the Saints to prove its faith.

"With all due respect, the "religious" - "believers" canard is becoming a little hackneyed in the climate debate. It's not about "belief", it's about empirical evidence. That a majority of scientists in the varied fields associated with climate work from the basis of evidence is clear...it's not a matter of faith."

So speaks the inner city leftie who wouldn't recognise evidence if it bit her.

AGW is a faith and has been legally recognised as one:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dismissed-employee-agrees-settlement-in-green-case-1949594.html

Anyone with half a brain can see AGW is merely the Eden myth repackaged with a dominant misanthropic taint:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

I continually attempt to engage the smarties who post here on the basis of the science and everytime when their house of cards falls down and all that is left is their reflection they go the ad hom.

For instance, I bet Poirot will link to SkS, or RC and make some Bolshie nitwit comment.

EQ,

I wasn't attempting to "prove a point" by listing extreme weather events per se - yet an increase in the frequency of "unusual and extreme events" are what we can expect in a warmer world.

Just for you....(check out the "long-term trend")

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Poirot, show us a 'projection' made before 1998 that predicts sixteen years of no global warming, and you may have a case. As it is, you can see the ever-increasing gap between IPCC predictions and actual temperatures here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/18/dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-ar5-figure-1-4/

We are now well outside the predictions made as late as 2007.

Hey, hey, cohenite, you were right about the link!

Re: your comment..."...and all that is left is their reflection and they go ad hom."

ad hom?

You mean like this?

"I bet Poirot will.... make some Bolshie nitwit comment."

One of your most employed tactics on this forum is to call people names.

Hypocrite much.