Death Valley Record high temp, 3 degrees LOWER than 1913

And you're plainly out of your depth. I should stick to posting random irrelevant links. This is a complicated subject. 

You choose a specific year and area as your evidence. Its what you always do, it was warmer in July 1917, There was a bigger flood in 1843, There was a stronger hurricane in 1956. 
Its the way of the denier. In the meantime. 

How interesting. Do you have a link at all. If not I can look it up. 

Yes I heard that comment. Unlike you I didn't take it literally. 
I heard a commentator the other day say the whole world was behind the women's world cup. I didn't take that literally either. 

Eminent and world leading scientists do not use "Pseudo Science" to form conclusions, they only deal in pure science based upon evidence.

For me personaly I know from my own experience ( without scientific evidence ), that someting is wrong, and that the conditions today are VERY different from when I was in my teens and early 20s back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Where I live here in the North of England, the frosts always arrived late October / early November, and the frosts were common and frequent - today they are now very rare.

The town where I was brought up used to often get cut off by snow, and drifts at the sides of the moorland roads were 5,6 and 8 feet deep - this does not happen any more.

In Winter all households where I live kept candles in case of powercuts, the blizzards used to bring down the powerlines over the moors, and today we tell children about what it was like, because they have never experienced it. 

I know that very soon, perhaps in another 20 years, we probably wont see snow any more

I think that most people are sensible enough NOT to believe a climate change denier on a discussion board, and that they would heed what scientists are telling us, but none the less, I do think its dangerous to be spreading the lie that climate change is not happening.

If enough people deny or ignore reality, the greater the chances are of nothing been done about it 

I too have noticed a change. Except on the nearby moors snow was always a rarity here in the southwest, but winters still tended very often to be cold. We still get cold days now during winter, sometimes several in a row, but they tend to be the exception rather than the norm now. Typical winter temperatures here now rise into double figures celsius. Frost is much less frequent than I remember it being. And I used to mow grass for a living at one point the the 1980s. Typically back then it wouldnt even begin to start growing again until late March, and would have pretty much stopped growing by November. These days it seems to start growing several weeks earlier and stops growing several weeks later. We have in recent years experienced such unseasonably mild winter days sometimes that bees have been tempted out in February.

Heatwaves in particular locations have always happened occasionally. I well remember the long hot summer of 1976. But in recent years such heat occurs far more often over far wider geographic areas. And rarely a year goes by without a heat record being broken somewhere. Forest fires of course have always been newsworthy and always been reported, but it is clear that they are far more common and widespread in more recent years.

The thing is, whatever the naysayers say, all this was predicted by climatologists two or three decades ago. The only thing they appear to have gotten wrong  is that it has all been happening much faster than they predicted.

1. I can't make any sense of this gobble-de-gook. The predictions of the climate models have been shown to wrong for decades - and always in the direction of exaggerating warming.

2. You do have a habit of just making stuff up zany. This is just rubbish. As I've said the "climate change models" are based heavily on the weather models with the exception that they include a coefficient that determines how much the temperature rises for increases in CO2. That's all. There is no such calculation for water because they can't model a substance that exists in 3 phases in the atmosphere. They can't even model a simple substance like CO2 which is always a gas - that's why they use the hypothesis. As for "Without AGW concentrations of water vapour would return to pre industrial levels" don't be ridiculous. Water vapour various hugely and is widely ignored. You just make stuff up zany. 

3. That's the old nonsense "We must do something". This is the kind of stuff that has led to the sale of vast numbers of diesel cars that have led to illegal levels of pollutants in our cities.