That’s what this really amounts to
Climate scientist admits his/her primary motivation is to influence politics, not to understand climate?https://t.co/7JIPf2oOY3 pic.twitter.com/yYlMTBg1tN
— Tom Nelson (@TomANelson) December 15, 2021
From the link, which is really trying to show that the big tornadoes the other day were because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle
To the people who experienced these events firsthand, such conclusions can provide powerful proof of the urgency—and the catastrophic consequences—of global warming. “It’s critically important to humanizing climate change,” says Swain, who divides his time between research, including attribution studies, and climate communication via his popular Twitter feed and blog.
This intimate connection with the needs and concerns of the general public makes extreme event attribution unusual among the sciences, where public communication often takes a backseat. “Our motivation for why we do what we do is to provide the public with the information they need to make choices for their future,” says Deepti Singh, a climate scientist at Washington State University Vancouver who studies events like extreme rain in India to understand the on-the-ground effects of climate change.
That’s really not how science works, except with a cult. They’re trying to conform the outcomes of “science” to fit their beliefs.
Today, attribution studies use two main sources of data: climate models, which can predict what weather might look like today had climate change never happened, and historical data, which show what the weather was actually like before it kicked into gear. Taken together, they can help researchers quantify how often, under each condition, things like daily temperatures would exceed a particular baseline, or monthly rainfall would be below some threshold. As long as an extreme event can be characterized in terms of those kinds of constraints, it can in theory be analyzed with the techniques of extreme event attribution.
And they keep changing historical data, which, for the most part, doesn’t let us compare what happened during previous Holocene warm periods, to what is happening today. Computer models simply give them the answers they want to support the cult.
If you're saying it "likely played a role" but "the question is how", it's not science, it's a cult #ClimateCrisisScam https://t.co/zp8Df9aB9X
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) December 14, 2021
The actual headline at the CNN cult screed reads “Climate change likely played a role in this weekend’s deadly tornadoes. The question is how.” That’s putting the cart before the horse. The outcome before doing the science. And, yes, I’ve mostly avoided the whole “climate crisis made the tornado” stuff, because it is making me abnormally angry that they immediately used all those deaths to push their cult. Maybe I need a “global warming aholes” category.
