As near as can be determined--leveraging the immense exposure of large language models to the statistics of human language usage--you are objectively out of step with the (intersubjective) norms of usage of "normal".

Gemini says, "Non-standard "normal":

The argument implies that "normal" refers to some fixed state. In climate science, "normal" is more about the range of conditions within which ecosystems and societies have adapted. The current rapid changes are pushing us outside of that range."

ChatGPT says, after a discussion of the points made in the argument, "In summary, the argument uses a non-standard conception of "normal" effectively to highlight a more relevant issue—habitability."

Claude says, "The argument does use a non-standard conception of what is "normal." In climate science, "normal" typically refers to recent historical averages...While it's true that there's no single "normal" climate over geological time, recent climate stability has been crucial for human civilization. The Holocene epoch (roughly the last 11,700 years) has had a relatively stable climate that has enabled agriculture and the development of complex societies."

Llama3 says, "most people understand "normal" to mean a statistically average or typical state of the climate system over a specific timescale, such as decades or centuries."

The use of normal appears everywhere from PBS to university press releases. There's even a formal definition of a quantitative climate normal.