Record Breaking Weather

[Cuzz]

And that's interesting and valuable data. But, ONE MONTH, even an outliers month, does not IN IT'S SELF support an argument for climate change. Using short period data does bring our attention to the issue, but ALONE does not prove the point. 
Scientists use a host of information to support the theory that our climate is changing and until another scientist proves it wrong it is a down home dead right fact...our climate is changing and without a doubt mans actons has been a significant contributor. 
What we are arguing about is a short period of time that proves the fact. It does not. For instance: Scientists look at tree rings, stream beds, and a ton of other stuff to conclude that our climate is changing and not just "weather patterns". 
We agree.
We just don't agree about that some data proves a point, even if it demonstates the ongoing argument that the methodology supports the theory. 

What will we conclude when we have a three month period when the weather someplace is much colder than it has been in recent history?

You've been confusing me on this subject. But I think I've figured it out. You want proof but you don't want support?

 I guess. 
I should just let it go. 
I'm bothered by short term "evidence" about climate, always believing it to weather. 
But, it "is what it is" and I'm ready to accept whatever way it's presented. 
As a guy "of a certain age" it won't matter all that much to me anyway. 
Grandkids will just have to deal with it. That and Trump. 

Here, to satisfy your hanker for "long term evidence". 

http://www.ecowatch.com/katharine-hayhoe...71842.html