You really do not have to get beyond the subhead at this NY Times screed to understand the reality
Examining the Role of Climate Change in a Week of Wild Weather
The science suggests that the United States can expect more unusual and severe storms as the world heats up, increasing the urgency for action to protect communities.
“Suggests.” That’s not the way this works.
What they should be saying is “people with a degree related to science and politics and social studies suggest, but, have no proof, having tested, haven’t proven anything.”
“We’ve not seen that combination of heat and dry, followed by an extended period of strong wind,” said Grady Dixon, who teaches geosciences at Fort Hays State University in Kansas. “It was so unusual for the month of December — it has to make you ask questions.”
One key question is what role global warming might have played in fueling such an extreme weather event. Scientists cautioned that it could prove difficult, if not impossible, to untangle the precise links between this week’s storm and climate change, although it appeared to be helped in part by record warmth across much of the country.
In other words, they don’t know squat.
(Not A Lot Of People Know That) In an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times, professor and climate economist Richard S.J. Tol of the University of Sussex explained why it is so difficult to connect weather events on the scale of a tornado to shifts in the Earth’s climate.
“Tornadoes are small, rarely more than 3 kilometers in diameter. The most advanced climate models, however, cannot see things that are smaller than 9 by 9 km. Climate models can therefore tell us very little about tornadoes,” he told The Epoch Times via email.
“Data are not great, but suggest that there is no upward or downward trend in tornado frequency or severity,” he added.
All the actual data shows that the climate hysterics are wrong. They aren’t working through the scientific method. Just making suggestions, predictions, prognostications, and failing to get results through testing. But, they do not care, because this is not about science: it’s about politics and control.
William Teach: What they should be saying is “people with a degree related to science and politics and social studies suggest, but, have no proof, having tested, haven’t proven anything.”
Science doesn’t *prove* as in mathematics. All conclusions are considered tentative, even if strongly supported.
William Teach: Test hypothesis with an experiment
Science doesn’t always rely on experiments per se, but observation.
William Teach: In other words, they don’t know squat.
In this case, there is some evidence that storms will become more severe as the Earth’s surface warms. The evidence is much less certain regarding tornadoes.
Although there is no credible evidence that tornado frequency has increased with global warming, the clustering or outbreaks of multiple tornadoes has increased, likely a result of the increased energy in the atmosphere. Additionally, the location of “tornado alley” is shifting as is the timing of “tornado season”.
Teach: In other words, they don’t know squat
Again Mr Teach uses his well-worn logical fallacy of all-or-none thinking. Not knowing everything is not equivalent to knowing nothing.