From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Look out, folks! There’s a new rodeo in town – one that goes by the name of ‘Climate Attribution’. It’s got its sights set on every extreme weather event that has ever happened, and it’s not shy about taking credit for them either.

Here is the description of an upcoming session at AGU23, called “Bridging the Gap from Climate to Extreme Weather: Observations, Theory and Modeling”. They’ve got a whole bunch of scientists ready to convince us all how climate change is responsible for just about everything bad under the sun.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Climate Attribution’s Best Friend

What tickles me is that these climate attribution studies all seem to be classics example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. You know, that’s when a sharpshooter shoots at a barn, then draws a target around the closest cluster of bullet holes to boast about his accuracy.

This is precisely what’s happening with these extreme weather attributions. Climate scientists pick out the extreme weather events, paint a target around them, and voila, climate change did it! But what about the regular, run-of-the-mill weather events? Is climate change conveniently on vacation when those happen? If we want to talk about attribution, let’s put everything on the table, not just the extremes that make good headlines.

The “Bridge” to Nowhere

The conference blurb states that it aims to “bridge the gap between climate and extreme weather.” But isn’t this just creating a bridge where no river exists? It seems like a great effort to confirm their biases rather than objectively analyzing the data. And if the bridge does exist, they’ve only built half of it. Where are the studies showing climate change’s influence on mild, sunny days? Or on the perfectly average rainfall?

The Climate Physics of Convenient Omission

This conference promises to delve into “underlying climate physics” that generate extreme weather events. Now that’s a loaded term if I ever heard one. But let’s be real, physics doesn’t just switch on for hurricanes, tornadoes, and heatwaves. It’s always at work. So, why the selective study? Could it be that regular weather events don’t quite have the same ‘doom and gloom’ appeal?

Hitting the Bullseye or Just Firing Blanks?

The conference also promises to explore “the mechanisms by which their statistics vary across climate states, including global warming.” Now, I’m no statistician, but I know a thing or two about playing with numbers. When you’re only focusing on extreme events and attributing them to climate change, you’re not painting an accurate picture. You’re skewing the data to fit the narrative. It’s like firing a round of blanks and claiming you hit the bullseye.

While they’re at it, maybe these rodeo clowns can figure out why climate change is making EF-3 and stronger tornadoes decline in the US for over five decades. But in case that’s just TOO HARD, maybe they can get rid of the evidence, because that’s a lot less work and a lot less embarrassing.

So folks, as we watch this upcoming conference unfold, let’s not forget to keep a keen eye on where these sharpshooters are drawing their targets. How likely is it that they honestly exploring the influence of climate on weather events across the board, or are they just highlighting the extremes for a round of climate change bingo? And remember, it’s all fun and games until someone starts blaming sunsets on global warming.

For a bit of refreshing sanity, here’s Pielke Jr. on the hype over flood attribution:

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/series-what-the-media-wont-tell-you-3b0

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Does this climate attribution remind you more of science or sharpshooting?

HT/MM