climate attribution, Tag

As always, The Guardian isn’t content to merely spread alarmism—it needs to moralize. The piece does not present testable hypotheses or falsifiable predictions. No, it sermonizes. It's less a scientific article and more...

In its own way this is quite a remarkable admission by the BBC – that they now accept that weather attribution models cannot be regarded as FACTUAL

Roger Pielke is particularly unimpressed with what he calls “weather attribution alchemy”. In his view, attribution science is a form of “tactical science”. Such science serves legal and political ends, and the work...

The purpose of scale is to provide context. A 1 million acre wildfire is big. In the Texas panhandle, it killed two people, destroyed dozens of homes and caused nearly $5 billion in damage. Had a similar sized fire occurred...

Almost as surprising as the downpour’s intensity was the rush by agencies in this space to conclude it was caused by the bogeyman apparently driving all natural disasters today: “climate change”.

In the end it seems dubious to attribute an extreme precipitation event to climate change when using the CMIP6 models. The ocean warming is for sure a source for more evaporation and also for more rain, although the proportional...

The inability of the IPCC to attribute bad weather to humans has been viewed by climate advocates as “politically problematic”, continues Pielke. He notes the work of climate activists Elizabeth Lloyd and Naomi Oreskes...

... weather attribution from the outset was deliberately intended for political and media purposes. It was introduced because the IPCC was able to find any real evidence that weather was actually getting more extreme.

Note, just because the Earth is 1.3°C warmer than Little Ice Age in 1850 and atmosphere holds more water vapor does NOT mean a particular weather event was caused by climate change. It's not that simple.

Without precise or even any measurements, this argument remains completely speculative.

In this talk, Dr. Soon discussed major fundamental problems with the “detection and attribution” of global warming by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that the media doesn’t tell you about.

Mainstream media is strangely quiet about an unfolding flood catastrophe in China.

“I can think of no other area of research where the relaxing of rigour and standards has been encouraged by researchers in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits”.

...environmental advocates would pursue all of these strategies.

Which means that the past 20 years worth of “signal detection” claims are likely meaningless unless steps were taken in the original articles to prove the suitability of TLS or verify its results with another nonbiased...