I did not address the issue of Polar Vortexes, so you have no evidence one way or the other about my knowledge of that subject. My point was a more general one concerning the value of evidence in supporting a theory.
Actually, that's fine, you can say that, except that you have set up a situation where ALL evidence, regardless of what it is - even totally opposite evidence - they all support your theory.
That doesn't make sense. That's religion, not science.
Or let me put it this way: tell me then, what kind of temperature patterns for the Northern Hemisphere in winter would you agree that, if they occurred, would NOT support Global Warming Theory?
I await your reply. Have a good day.