C'mon guy, I'm sure parent poster is aware of how statistics work and the difference between weather and climate. As the weirdening of environment continues, everyone will have a personal story where the consequences of climate change hit home. This is theirs.

> I'm sure parent poster is aware of how statistics work

I can't talk about whom I replied to, but you would be surprised how few people actually get statistics and probabilities right.

If we knew how probabilities worked, we wouldn't be surprised.

Humans unquestionably respond to "stories", especially those with personal impact, more than just statistics. But statistics and fair/scientific data analysis are the correct form of analysis.

Maybe the right thing is some process to analyze the data fairly and then pick verifiably representative instances for deep-dive stories about the change.

(I'm pretty sold on climate change, and increasingly so on CO2/human activity as a major factor, and likely large impact, but I think the costs of brutal CO2 reduction are probably far higher than the costs of alternative remediations. Including costs on other environmental issues -- as diesel fuel in cities vs. gasoline has shown, with one having lower carbon emissions due to efficiency, but the other being cleaner in other emissions...)

It’s not one data point. It’s an additional data point on top of millions of other data points.

This very much depends on the model space in question. If our model space includes “climate continues normally” and “climate gets weird/warm over time” models, then an event that occurs that is an outlier for “normal,” but routine for “warm/weird,” does tip the odds toward “we are in the weird/warm regime, now.” In other words, future weather days, modeled as tokens being drawn from one of two climate bags, are not independent. Each draw of warm/weird makes it more likely that we have switched from the normal bag to the weird one.