Raycom, you can huff and puff about what you consider to be a conspiracy but it is immaterial as to what is happening in the real world displaying climate change. Deniers bring up the same tired information which is now years old. Meanwhile there have literally been thousands of climate change scientific papers published.

Those denying climate change have no answers in relation to the lakes forming on the Greenland ice shelf with rivers taking water away to moulins.

Yesterday I was listening to the Captain of a Canadian Coast Guard ship saying how they can venture into open water in the Arctic Ocean in Summer where that had into been possible about 7 years ago. He wasn't talking about climate change but hydro graphic work.

I've yet to hear an explanation why there were 35,000 walrus on a spit of land when they would normally been hunting.

But if you like old data Raycom; in relation to temperature, how about:

"Parts of the Arctic have experienced an unprecedented heatwave this summer, with one research station in the Canadian High Arctic recording temperatures above 20C, about 15C higher than the long-term average. The high temperatures were accompanied by a dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice in September to the lowest levels ever recorded, a further indication of how sensitive this region of the world is to global warming."
Reported in 2007.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/record-22c-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-394196.html

What is the denier explanation?
Remember Arctic sea ice is at a lower extent and volume now than it was in 2007.

A little logic Raycom; when we moved to our current home in 1988, the house was on a paddock with one tree; quite a windy spot. We planted lots of trees and shrubs shielding us from some of the wind. If we took temperatures from a particular spot back in 1988 and compared them to current measures, there would be a variance in temperature. A case of the environment having changed.

But temperature is something from your point of view that can be argued about; data and observation from the environment is a different proposition.

Raycom, getting back to drought in the Amazon Basin:
As an adolescent occasionally I read Field and Stream magazines;in an article about the Beaverkill River (US) by Theodore Gordon who wrote about the impact on his beloved river through deforestation ( elsewhere in onlineopinion I suggested his surname was Theodore). That was 50 plus years ago when only a few scientists were discussing climate change and it was not a topic of general discussion. But as a 13 or 14 year old I didn't hear anything about climate change. The article was about how flow rates had significantly altered with flash flooding and significant lowered water flows at other times. The article was not a comment about climate change but described the relationship between deforestation and its impact on the water cycle.

Regardless of what deniers might say, we now know that deforestation does have an impact on climate change; temperature may or may not be an added feature.

ant, despite all your huffing and puffing, your assertions remain wholly unsupported -- you have not tabled any empirical scientific evidence to show that the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions..

Raycom, as a teenager I understood the impact on water cycles caused through deforestation, you do not appear to be able to understand what is common knowledge. There have been four droughts in the Amazon Basin in the last decade. Drought is not a usual happening there, a once in one hundred year event. There has been deforestation in the Amazon Basin.
Theodore Gordon observed what was happening on the Beaverkill River and he was not a scientist, now we see what he described replicated in many places.