Then there is the issue of what "normal" is. An uncle once described it as being the average of the extremes.
In climatology, "normal' is defined as the average for a particular element taken over a defined period. These periods are set by WMO and last for 30 years. The most recent Climate Standard Normal was 1991 - 2020, with the previous Climate Standard Normal from 1961 - 1990, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I interpret that to mean that 'normal' is whatever you say it is. And I say that that's a meaningless term vis a vis any mathematical statistical analysis. Call an average an average, a mean a mean, or a mode a mode! Don't dress up your 'average' so it postures as anything else, least of all 'normal'. Weather is just that, weather. And 'climate' has always been and will always be changing. Current attempts to arrest climate change are nothing more than pi**ing in the wind.
Do you mean that we can't undo what we've done so far?
I mean that your premises are flawed, sir, as is your so-called science. Greenhouse gases are actually good for the flora if you stop and think about it. You have no rock solid scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real, i.e. experimental evidence in a controlled environment, nor can you ever hope to control the variables involved. Your 'science' is based on biased premises and therefore reaches biased conclusions. I don't have the answers to the questions about our climate's history and future, and neither do you. Please stop pretending that you know more about it than anyone else because you're an 'expert' who has drunk the Kool Aid.
Here's an example from medicine of how science actually works. For millenia peptic ulcer disease in man was thought to be due to overt or covert psychological issues and so were treated, ineffectively I might add, with antacids and antianxiety medications. Then some enterprising investigators found a hitherto unknown bacterium they called
helicobacter pylori in these ulcerations. They wondered, could it be??? So they undertook a clinical investigation where under double-blind controlled conditions (neither the investigator nor the subject knew who got what) they treated these ulcers with an antibiotic regimen designed to eliminate the bacterium. Those who received the antibiotics were almost uniformly relieved of their ulcers, but being scientists they recognized that this could be merely odds-long coincidence, so they needed proof that their regimen actually cured peptic ulcer disease. It was only after following those patients who no longer had the bacterium,
helicobacter pylori, and demonstrating that their ulcers did indeed not recur was the evidence garnered that demonstrated scientifically that this bacterium was indeed the culprit behind peptic ulcer disease. That's how science works. Anything less than that isn't science but guesswork backed by groupthink, e.g. PUD (peptic ulcer disease) is caused by stress. E.G putative global warming is anthropogenic and can therefore be stopped by stopping whatever we think man is doing to cause it. That is a premise and a conclusion all neatly wrapped up without any definitive proof.
