Not exact matches
Even a decade ago, many scientists argued that research could not confidently tie any specific weather
events to
climate change, which the committee reports today is no longer
true today.
It is absolutely
true that
climate scientists are extremely cautious about attributing any
event to anthropogenic
climate change, but an increasing number of such attributions are being made with high confidence in the scientific literature now.
While it is
true that any one particular storm or weather
event can not be attributed to
climate change alone, unusual rain such as this is precisely the type of «global weirding» that
climate scientists have predicted would occur as the
climate warmed.
* Not strictly
true: EVERY «disruptive
event» is followed immediately by news stories quoting a menagerie of
climate experts who cite the
event as clear evidence of not only
climate change, but anthropogenic
climate change.
Now Dr Cai and colleagues report once again in Nature
Climate Change that the same is
true for what one might call the oscillation's downside: global warming is likely to double the frequency of extreme La Niña
events, too.
Because 20 - year trends can be substantially influenced by just a few single or multi-year «warm» or «cold»
events, they are not necessarily representative of the
true response of the
climate system to the more gradual
changes in atmospheric composition that are taking place in response to human activities.
While it is
true that not all disasters are caused by
climate change, extreme weather and slow - onset
events can be clearly attributed to
climate change, he says.
We should divert the research funding that so many global warming alarmists have depended on towards nobler ends that address REAL threats, such as
TRUE climate -
change events, when such
events really happen.
True to form, they continue to mindlessly support the coal industry (one of the main causes of
climate change and the increasingly frequent violent weather
events) and denigrate renewable energy.