Mark and Tess have a classic argument based on a deliberate or mistaken misunderstanding. Weather is a relatively short-term (hours, days, weeks, etc.) state of the atmosphere in a given region. On the other hand, climate is described as a long-term (years, decades, centuries, etc.) statistical description of weather patterns in a given region, or even globally, through averaging all weather regions on the earth. It’s micro v. macro. So Tess pushed Mark’s environmental buttons and he gets defensive.

Mark should try to explain the difference to Tess, who appears to present herself as a climate change skeptic. Will he do so (or save it to Sunday)? Probably not. As in virtually all Mark Trail stories since it began, nature and environmental issues are usually discussed in a broad sort of way (emphasizing exposure and public interest), and serving as a motivation for the story, itself.

To me, an important question is this: Is Jules Rivera making Tess taunt Mark by misdirecting him with a deliberate misuse of the term “Climate stuff” that is almost guaranteed to unhinge Mark? Is Rivera just making Tess out to be a typical climate change skeptic or denier, to get Mark to defend climate change while she pulls out the weather card to show the immediate weather report isn’t all that bad, thereby undermining Mark’s “climate change” forecast?