These days everything is blamed on climate change. And when people point out natural variation, they get bashed.
A recent example is the CA fires, there is zero evidence linking them to climate change - they did a study and found no effect - which of course was reported as "climate change to blame".
My bad for double posting, but they are probably referring to [this one](https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-incre...), which says the exact opposite.
Yes, that's the study that shows zero effect. The authors completely messed up in their write up of the study. That study is the definition of bad science.
Watch this if you want more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o
She explains better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDsjeKo3u3o
What are you talking about? The burden is on you to explain how manipulating the chemical makeup of the atmosphere DOESN'T have a direct impact, even at the tiniest levels (1ppm).
At the levels we're at now, CO2e imbalances definitely impact every single weather event on the planet to some degree, and you'd have to be delusional not to accept that.
When the level of random variation is greater than the change attributed to an event it's not possible to claim an event caused something. The random changes overwhelm and possible change.
If you want to claim a change anyway, the burden is on you to do the modeling and math to prove it.
Unless we're talking about two different studies, saying you misinterpreted it is an understatement (https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-incre...)