>> Let me end with the golden rule of temperature extremes: the bigger the temperature extreme the SMALLER the contribution of global warming. Think about that.

This frustrates me because "global warming" refers to the average temperature sure, but it is really only useful as a measure of the total _energy_ in the atmosphere. More energy = more extreme _events_, such as this one. Whereas the way I read his point seems to be making the claim that because the temperature of the event is further from the normal temperature, that is less about global warming. Hence why "climate change" is a more accurate phrase.

> I think this event has yet to be fully explored and scientifically analyzed, but currently it looks like this is a rare 1 in 1000 years event that could have occurred with or without climate change. In the past we would have written this event off as an anomaly, a record setting event that stands out but isn't the norm. But now it seems like people are very quick to shout 'climate change' for literally any kind of weather anomaly and I am trying to understand why.

Because there seem to more and more* of these "rare 1 in 1000 years" events. The increased frequency is why people shout 'climate change'.

* it could just be increased reporting in our highly connected world, but I don't think so.

If there is no conclusive evidence towards either side, then why not choose the side more likely to protect humanity from further harm?

You can be in favour of major surgery on our civilisation to get to net-zero in order prevent climate change, and still think that this event was likely not caused by climate change.

And what would make me think that - the mere possibility of it being true is not a compelling argument.

I view this as separate from the debate of how serious climate change is and how much we need to intervene to address it. I'm simply pointing out that if we are to "trust the science" and seek the truth, then the reality is there is no evidence as yet that links this particular isolated event to climate change. I'm not a fan of distorting the truth to draw attention to climate change and achieve policy change as a "justifiable end".

What’s the cost of distorting truth in this case?

Taking Pascal's Wager regarding climate change?

But I thought that was for religious beliefs.

It was a metaphorical allusion, not a literal. Pascal's Wager is a very similar philosophical concept to the parent commenter's "why not choose" suggestion regarding climate change.

Yes that’s a great way to put it.

I don't agree with the idea that climate change science is shaky, but this is a bad line of argument to go down.

Here's an example of why it's a bad line to go down:

> There's no conclusive evidence God exists or not, so why not choose the side that is more likely to save your soul?

That's what I've never got as well. "Well it could help save humanity... but dammit, what is life if I can't roll coal on some bikers!!"

> If there is no conclusive evidence towards either side, then why not choose the side more likely to protect humanity from further harm?

Yes, completely agreed! Now we just have to figure out which side that is.

Put another way, you'll go a long way towards wisdom when you realize both sides of most arguments believe they are arguing for what is genuinely the best option, including what will protect humanity.

I'm not a client change denier, but it's silly to argue "why don't you just do what is clearly right?" in pretty much any disagreement.

When it comes to climate change, I‘m not trying to gain wisdom, but lobby for a world that is livable for the foreseeable future. That’s a purely political endeavor. Of course I could be wrong.

That's trivial: check which side is lining their pockets, then choose the other.

Which side is that, exactly? On one hand we have big oil and pretty much every industrial polluter globally, and on the other hand we have academia which "lines their pockets" by finding ever more questions that need answering, and stoking fear of social or environmental collapse to generate those questions.

Now, I personally know which side I trust more. However, if the lens is "who is lining their pockets" well, I am not sure that's really enough.

Ah, the ol' "a perfect world is one where I pull everyone down to my level" logic.

> But now it seems like people are very quick to shout 'climate change' for literally any kind of weather anomaly and I am trying to understand why.

I admittedly haven't done a statistical analysis, but aren't these "anomalies" happening significantly more frequently than before?

In Seattle, which was one of the cities affected by this event (also on the West side of the Cascade mountain range), the previous days with triple digit temperatures occurred in 2009, 1994, and 1941. The earlier parts of this season were actually cooler than usual, and drier than usual. You would often see posts about having the coolest day in X years from weather posts (example: https://twitter.com/NWSSeattle/status/1401722154157187073).

Anecdotal but there was recently a tornado in Czechia. That's just nuts for such a region. I suspect the rate at which these anomalies will be happening will surprise many.

That is literally what you get when you pump more energy into a titanic chaotic system with more possible energy than any human war could inflict. When you boost the amount of energy in the system it's further destabilized and the amount of violence unleashed is well beyond the worst we can do with bombs and weapons of war.

I'm not surprised. I've been saying this for years, along with many people who understood that climate was a chaotic system. People just do not understand what's happening.

Counter anecdote: the last tornado event in mountainous Salt Lake City, Utah was in 1999.

Is that a counter anecdote or a supporting anecdote?

and big floods in southern Germany and a record heat wave in Sweden at the same time.