Meteorologists may or may not know a lot about climate; it isn't necessary to be a climate expert to be a meteorologist. To be a meteorologist you need to know meteorology.
When the data can be shown to be reliable, that might give it more credibility, but the evidence is so flimsy that the time frame so inadequate, that building a whole theory on it is ludicrous.
There is a lot of data, of many different types. Your blanket characterization of it as "flimsy" is opinion.
Since we've now deviated considerably from the original point, I will agree to a conclusion of our discussion at this point.
OK :)