That's people's reactions, nothing else. The evening news needs stories, what's new about that? In the part I bolded you seem to be confusing actual proof with "what the news stories say". I'm not the one that said Katrina had anything to do with global warming; one-off events have no climatological significance. OTOH if Katrina turns out not to be a one-off event, then you can say it's part of a trend, not before. It's hard to tell really. Meteorology has come a long way in the last couple of decades, particularly in regard to medium and long-term prediction. I wouldn't consider the fact that something couldn't be predicted 20 years ago to mean that predictions would not be more accurate in the future (not saying they'll be infallible either). As regards my statement that it's easier to predict the average climate in 100 years than the weather for next year, I stand by it. That medium-term prediction I talked about above (predicting up to a few months in the future) is apparently the part of meteorology that is improving most rapidly at the moment (this coming from my meteorologist father). It's still virtually impossible to predict next year's weather. OTOH when dealing with climate predictions you're talking about patterns and averages over a period of years, which is entirely different. Predicting weather is not an exact science, that doesn't mean it's a guess. There is a middle ground between the two. Any science is based on observation, quantification and analysis; incorrect conclusions can be drawn but that doesn't mean it's guesswork. Your example of one record cold season disproving global warming showed a complete lack of understanding of the difference between weather and climate, that's why I pulled you up on it.