It's funny you should mention the temperature of a specific and particular season as some sort of "Gotcha!" evidence completely and irrefutably proving a particular idea.

It's especially funny that you bring this up when one of the most common responses when those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming bring up the particularly cold winters and summers of just a few years ago was that you could not prove it wasn't happening merely by checking a thermometer.

So no, I reject your evidence on its face as spurious and without any merit in proving as factual anthropogenic global warming.

Besides, I don't particularly care whether the earth is warming or cooling. Your wisdom should recall that the earth has been through many warming and cooling cycles in the past, some worse than others. Some actually pretty beneficial, in the grand scheme of things. For instance, longer growing seasons resulting from warming immediately preceded the renaissance and the reformation, when surpluses of resources allowed for the accumulation of wealth, which allowed for some people to study their whole lives instead of having to toil in the fields, leading to the philosophical and technological growth of that time. So if the world is warming, more power to it. As a 10 year old, all on my own, I realized the photosynthesis cycle is quite capable of maintaining a balance. And don't throw deforestation in my face as some counter: the US has more acres of forest than was estimated to exist when the pilgrims landed, thanks to our efforts at preventing and controlling forest fires. Continuing efforts to responsibly manage forest-based resource gathering world-wide should be sufficient to keep those numbers going up elsewhere.

Finally, whether or not there's warming or cooling going on,the most correlated data points not to Anthros, but to Sol as the chief culprit behind such fluctuation.

But all that aside, the chief reason I will never agree with you on Global warming has to do not with whether or not it is occurring, nor whether it is anthropogenic or solagenic, it's that you follow those who would use this to scare people into giving up their rights and freedoms for some fleeting measure of false security, hoping against hope that our benevolent government will swoop in and lower the temperatures 3 degrees or so.

Why do you assume that is a function merely of the Right? Are the Left free of the encumbrances of humanity?

The kid has still got several other scraped articles he's attributed to himself. So he hasn't learned his lesson yet. He's probably just sorry he got caught.

Because the Bible proposes that it is the word of God, and maintains it's exclusivity inherent in that claim, in order to consider it worthwhile I must consider it true. If is it not true it is not worthwhile There are be plenty other places I can learn about "ways to live amongst (my) neighbors", and to go to a book I know to be comprised of lies would be the height of foolishness.

In reference to context, yes, you did. If Jesus did exist and He said what was in the Bible, which is what we're assuming by nature of this part of our discussion, then you did take him out of context as I pointed out. You are proposing that you, who believe the Bible to be primarily composed of lies, and those parts that are not explicit lies are based on them, have read the Bible and studied it enough to know the primary aspects of Jesus' message. Forgive me for being credulous.

Jesus' would indeed have denied healthcare and education and food, if the person refused in any way to perform any form of work they were capable of. This is a very high bar, but something our country seems to have forgotten in their mad rush to social programs and "safety nets". I believe we used to term it the "deserving poor". There are those who are poor against their will and in spite of their efforts, and there are those who are poor because that's what they want or because they are not willing to do what they can (notice my careful terminology and do not accuse me of hard heartedness or callous disregard unnecessarily) to ameliorate their own conditions. Social welfare can be reasonably applied to those who are at least trying. The problem with the Federal government attempting to perform these services is that it is first inefficient, and second, too far removed from the actual source of the problems and therefore cannot know or understand the details of any given situation well enough to make a wise choice in who to support and how to support them. Jesus commanded people to, of their own volition, give to those they encounter who are poor. He did not command us to give to Caesar so that Caesar can give to the poor as he sees fit. It is a personal responsibility in Christ's kingdom, not the government responsibility understood by the socialists.
My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

As I stated in the comment, Nazism and Russian Communism were underpinned by the ideas and ideals of atheism.

Here the man of science and fact either takes something he's heard or something he's read and, either way, takes it out of context in order to make it fit his preconceived notions of how the world ought to work. Very scientific.

The consistent message of Christ was that people had to give up what it was that was that would take precedence over himself in their lives. Christ demands that he be the preeminent passion in the lives of his followers, and in the case of the rich young ruler, it was wealth that was in his way. It was not a contradiction in any sense of the word.
My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

All that may be true except for the biblical basis for private property, which is the first and best defense against Socialism and all its ills.
My recent post Loving God- Loving Each Other

There cannot be one piece of hard evidence that Jesus existed that you would accept. You may hide behind a veneer of open-mindedness, but let us dispense with this deceit: You are as close-minded as you claim me to be. For all the research and evidence pointing to the biblical writings of the new testament being written and disseminated throughout Asia and Europe and northern Africa within 2 generations of the life of Jesus of Nazareth you reject this. You will not accept my facts and therefore will remain unconvinced except for a change of heart on your part.
My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

You sound as though you admit there is a God. You may not like Him based on your perception of Him, but I don't think you're an atheist so much as an anti-theist.
My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

According to the Bible, Israel (Judaism) committed what was essentially genocide and was instructed to do so a few more times than they actually did. They don't get off either. But for all the millions you may claim have been killed in the name of religion (tracing the history of conflicts you find that more often than not religion was co-opted to rationalize the pride of man, cf the entire Crusades) it has been godlessness, institutionalized atheism, that has killed the most by far, and most of that has been in the 20th century, the bloodiest century in the entire history of mankind. The irreligion of Nazism (abetted by shrinking violets in the German church) committed the holocaust. It was the triumph of twisted science and a corrupted scientific mindset that determined Jews were unfit members of the human race, not some sense of religious necessity. It was the entrenched anti-god of the Bolsheviks that enslaved and killed untold millions of eastern Europeans and northwestern Asians, and the mini-me's of atheistic tin-hat despots that communism and socialism fledged have kept killing right along to the current day. You may have been raised in a tradition as "crazy as the rest of them" but you've chosen a tradition that's bloodier than any.
My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It