“Just as speeding increases the risk of a deadly auto accident, but cannot be conclusively assigned as the cause of an accident, a particular heat wave is not directly caused by global warming, but has a higher risk of occurrence and of being intense because of global warming.”
We can’t say for sure that any particular piece of junk science reporting is directly attributable to corruption in climate science, but the odds have massively increased.
Climate and weather are always changing. Even assuming there is a bit of warming (which is by no means certain), the real question is whether the changes are catastrophic and outside the bounds of what has happened in the relatively recent past. So far, the alarmists have only shown an ability to manipulate data and have not made that case.
……..a particular heat wave is not directly caused by global warming, but has a higher risk of occurrence and of being intense because of global warming.”
As, it would appear, is every other extreme weather event…including heavy snowfall. The present approach to the demonisation of CO2 at least has the merit of being simple to understand.
I saw the flooding in Manitoba this spring. I wondered what the affect of all the agricultural development would have had on the rate of run off. In its natural state there would have been grasslands, wetlands, bogs and forested areas which would have held the water . At the same time darker land surfaces [including cultivated land] and drainage ditches would have increased the thaw rate and increased the runoff rate, So what would the natural state of the prairies do to the local weather conditions? More moister from wetlands and bogs; less heat being absorbed by a land mass which would be lighter due to no cultivation.