[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Bingo. “Global warming” has pretty much been retired in favor of “climate change”. Only those behind the curve are still using the old term. “Climate change” covers anything and everything. A little cooler, a little warmer, more snow, less snow, rain, dry weather, even earthquakes. Anything. If the weather is exquisitely ideal, well that’s a change and is covered.

Perhaps, but the "global warming" theory was the result of and supported by the "computer models" of the Earth's climate and it's interaction with various "greenhouse" gasses. There is no connection between those fatally flawed computerized guessing games and the climate we have been enjoying for the last eight years or more.

"Climate change" as a theory doesn't even get the skinny fig leaf of a computer model to hide behind. It is a theory, dreamt up out of whole cloth by the unscrupulous, set before the credulous who are expected to believe in it as an article of faith. It is the antithesis of the scientific method as there has been no effort to base the theory on anything except "because I said so". It's past time to start asking "why" repeatedly and loudly, demand they support their thesis with documented predictions. That is the gold standard of the scientific method not regurgitated group-think.

Regards,
GtG

[pjd]

"Climate change" as a theory doesn't even get the skinny fig leaf of a computer model to hide behind. It is a theory, dreamt up out of whole cloth by the unscrupulous, set before the credulous who are expected to believe in it as an article of faith.

You're being too generous by calling "Climate Change" a theory. "Climate Change" is nothing more than an empty phrase. To qualify as a theory, it must at least provide some type of testable prediction and a mechanism by which predictions of the theory can be derived.