And we have these terms that have been around for centuries (long before Climate Change Theorists were ever born): Indian Summer and Unseasonable--
Indian summer is a period of unseasonably warm, dry weather that sometimes occurs in autumn in the Northern Hemisphere. Indian summers are common in the far East and the orient. The US National Weather Service defines this as weather conditions that are sunny and clear with above normal temperatures, occurring late-September to mid-November. It is usually described as occurring after a killing frost.
Late-19th century Boston lexicographer Albert Matthews made an exhaustive search of early American literature in an attempt to discover who coined the expression. The earliest reference he found dated from 1851. He also found the phrase in a letter written in England in 1778, but discounted that as a coincidental use of the phrase.
Later research showed that the earliest known reference to Indian Summer in its current sense occurs in an essay written in the United States in the late 1770s (probably 1778) by J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur. The letter was first published in French. The essay remained unavailable in the United States until the 1920s.
And we have this word from 1500s:
1. Not suitable to or appropriate for the season.
2. Not characteristic of the time of year: unseasonable weather.
3. Poorly timed; inopportune.
If the term "unseasonable" weather has been part of our lexicon for over 500 years now...I think it is rather "rich" for a group of politically motivated scientists to hijack these historical concepts and then suddenly suggest "unseasonably warm" is de facto proof that Climate Change exists AND the blame for its existence is "modern day man".
Just saying. It also is same argument when it comes to wildfires. Wildfires have been around long before man roamed this Earth--and, all of a sudden to suggest the cause for "wildfires" is related to Climate Change (blaming modern day mankind). WTF? Perhaps if Climate Changers allowed the harvesting of old wood, there would be less intensive forest fires (due to less available fuel to burn). Not to mention that for each tree harvested, some foresting companies replant 100 trees. Yep, 1:100 ratio. Think what forests would look like with new growth each year...20 years from now, 50 years from now. Think of the children (right?).