Phil: We don't really have any global data as far back as you're suggesting. Antarctica is localized too, not global. The reason there aren't satisfactory explanations for the phenomena that you cite is because there isn't any global data that reaches back that far. (Or at least that's one of the reasons. It is a reason that applies to the sensibilities of most reasonable people. But the attitudes of persons who cite them as "counterexamples" may be an additional reason that any explanations for them don't qualify as satisfactory... since satisfactory is in the eye of the beholder). They were localized phenomena, and the records of them are filled with anecdotal evidence rather than useful data on a global scale. Just consider the amount of heat that is held in the oceans, and what is perceived to be a 1 degree change in the northern and southern zones of all of the oceans. Given the fact that the specific heat of water is so much higher than that of air, the oceans represent a huge heat sink, compared with the amount of heat that can be quantified by measuring air temperatures. Yet there are no records of anything resembling even a crude measurement of deep ocean water temperatures more than 100 years ago. If you want to attack the science associated with climate change, I'd suggest you look for more scientific examples to cite.
But don't make the mistake of thinking Al Gore is a scientist... he is a political mouthpiece, not a scientist. (That doesn't mean he hasn't got an important role to play, but don't mistake him for a scientist). While I agree that paying attention to research funding is important (just look at those so-called "tobacco industry scientists" who said for decades that smoking doesn't cause cancer) <<edit: I corrected my grammar in that parenthetical statement>>, I wonder can you back up your claim that there is really any systemic collusion in government research funding that is actually based on a failure to "agree with the global warming agenda" (to quote your posting)? <<edit: I fixed a typo in my quote of your post>>. What I have seen is quite different: i.e. that while it is true that some so-called scientists who are blatantly biased against climate change do not get funding, that is not because of their failure to support an agenda, but rather because they do buy into a particular agenda (or for other reasons, such as sloppy histories or evidence of zealotry rather than scientific inquiry). << edit: I edited that last statement to clarify my point... I had left out the verb, among other things>>. Meanwhile, objective scientists do get funding, and I seem to recall some who published results that suggested less impact from greenhouse gases than they had originally suspected, but that did not stop them from publishing their findings.
So you criticize others for using too short a time scale, and then you say things like "Then, when the warming didn't happen...", well I must ask you: what makes you think that the warming didn't happen, or isn't happening? Are you looking at global data over a long time scale?
In summary, if your post is meant to suggest that climate change is not happening, then to me your arguments are not very satisfying.
One thing I can agree with you about though: the effects of this regional winter cold snap, regardless of whether it is just typical winter weather (as I suspect) or some artifact of the extreme swings predicted by various climate change models (which I don't suspect), are not good for our fig trees! :-) Stay warm.
Mike
<< all edits were within 9 minutes of posting, and resulted from proofreading. I plan no further edits to the above. Rather I will generate a new posting if I decide to clarify any of my statements further>>