You can "say" anything on the internet. You are claiming I'm "misrepresenting the data", which is only possible if you don't show all the data, there is no way linking to a source is misrepresenting anything. You also are confused that I want to "fool" you, which is absurd, it's so absurd, it's entertaining, it's funny.
For example, when I brought up the NH winters, which are obviously not getting warmer, milder, shorter, (in large areas), I used multiple sources to explain why science and data shows the winters actually are trending colder in large areas. I was shocked to see that Cohen et al 2012 was showing this using 1988-2010. They showed the boreal winters trended down since 1988, which of course most people would not know.
I can understand alarmists objecting to that knowledge. But I couldn't understand why anyone would claim there was no greenhouse theory, that part was certainly novel. When I counter the objections by using the exact phrase, in Cohen et al 2014, and the chorus of deniers who said there was no theory, and no science paper would use the term, and it still makes no difference, that's when you realize you are playing chess with a pigeon.
Actually, if you have to explain why something is funny, you might want to rethink the joke.
But certainly it's obvious to most, that when we read, in an actual peer reviewed paper, by a whole group of actual climate researchers, something profound and important, and the response is denial, the reaction from the doom and gloom crowd is priceless.
Cohen et al 2014 makes some very good points, and shows us exactly how the climate system may be reacting to greenhouse forcing in unexpected ways. I say "might" because certainty is rare in science as new and complicated as global climate.
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_NGeo14.pdf
If their theoretical ideas are correct, then in fact AGW might be causing the brutal and unheard of winter storms we know with 100% certainty are happening. Greenhouse warming might be causing the record cold in the NH. Warming might actually be the cause of Lake Superior freezing completely, for the first time ever. The other two times it almost happened are also in recent history, meaning we might be seeing obvious evidence of climate change.
(historic records of Lake Superior and ice are extensive. Up until the first time it almost froze, nobody would have believed it could even happen. Because it had never happened before. Going back to 1600 and something, that's a scientific fact)
Nobody actually knows. Of course it could be something else. There is extensive evidence and science that something else can cause the NH to cool. Other forcings can't be discounted.
But if they are right, and the loss of arctic sea ice is actually causing the early heavy snowfall, which leads to the other changes, which leads to the extreme cold, then in essence they have discovered a huge negative feedback.
Rather than the expected amplified warming from open water, more bare rock and land, melting glaciers and increased vegetation, all of which are expected to cause further warming of the polar regions, we seem to be observing a negative feedback in fall and winter. More snow, more cold, worse storms, more freezing, earlier blizzards, earlier frost, all of which is a huge monkey wrench into the warming narrative that everybody has heard for decades now.
Of course the alarmists denies this, and the fossil fuel deniers dance with joy. Both responses are unscientific. Useless really.
The only proper response is what Cohen et al clearly explains.
..largest load of tripe offered up yet.
