> there is zero evidence linking them to climate change - they did a study and found no effect

Can you point to this study? Or at least point to this "they" to whom you're referring?

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...)

No, I did not misinterpret it. That study does not show what you think it does. i.e. the actual data does not lead to the conclusion presented. The actual data shows zero effect, the written conclusion is a work of fiction.