I'm gonna love hearing anything about climate change that hasn't been tainted by a political, financial or my theory is can beat up your theory agenda.

Pretty much, personally I just use historical information to prove my argument that climate change has existed in some pretty nasty forms in the past (original Gothic movement from northeast Europe, Greenlandic population, Eric the Red's journal ice ages, etc) and this is nothing new. All a person can do nowadays is sit and wait for technology to remove human influence on climate change. Then we will still hear about all these species going extinct/endangered because for some reason the earth keeps shifting temperature like it is natural. Eco nuts have become as bad as the deniers for how much they want to influence the natural cycle of the planet, one denies making it worse, and the other wants to deny the earth's natural cycles.

The explanation is fairly simple. As the Troposphere warms, the stratosphere above it cools.

This is exactly what might be expected from a warming climate. Also, it is not unusually or exceptionally different from the normal. It has happened before.

I can link you to the explanation of stratospheric cooling if you like, but it is just a scientific fact. Predictable and inevitable.

So, indulge your passion and, if you can make some coherent question out of the screed uu have posted we might be able to look at them.

So the reason it is so cold is because it is so warm?

It must be nice to have a theory or belief that's substantiated by all evidence.

Cow turds, hot and steaming on a fall day? Proof of global warming.

18 meters of snow piled up on a Hawaiian beach? Proof of global warming.

-72C temps in the Arctic? Proof of global warming.

I don't know if you're paying any attention, but nature isn't cooperating with your entrail readings of gloom and doom.

-72 in the Arctic. Pray tell where and when.

Citing science is "knee jerk!"

Tell me why this climate change is so different from the previous ones, the earth produces a massive amount of C02, methane and other gases too.

Citing bad science is definitely knee-jerk. This usually occurs with confirmation bias.

What bad science, Dan? And where does your confirmation of that charge come from? My confirmation comes from the agreement of every researching climate scientist except for the handful who have been totally refuted.