Extreme weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. rips ‘event attribution’ science as the ‘relaxing of rigor & standards…in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy & even lawsuits’

There is no doubt that attribution claims have run far out ahead of detection of trends

"Since 1951, the number of heavy rainfall days per year for the whole of Germany has hardly changed, almost independently of their definition"https://t.co/ruEC7TZftq

HT @AndrewSiffert

— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 21, 2021

It turns out — and science scholars will love this — the choice of methodology, and thus choice of result, depends upon the message one wishes to convey pic.twitter.com/JYa54gpCyu

— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 21, 2021

As I have argued often, if conventional IPCC detection & attribution work showed clearly increasing extremes & plausible causes, then the post-modern "event attribution" methods would be unnecessaryhttps://t.co/L3zxmY9OPF pic.twitter.com/RXa5PJOjKV

— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 21, 2021

IPCC D&A methods have identified trends & causes in (many regions) for extreme temps & precip with various levels of confidence

But not tropical cyclones, floods, drought, tornadoes

So enter "event attribution" to fill the gap
Why? Explained below via NYT to win a PR battle pic.twitter.com/In406XFh4r

— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 21, 2021

I can think of no other area of research where the relaxing of rigor and standards has been encouraged by researchers in order to generate claims more friendly to headlines, political advocacy and even lawsuits . . .

But there you go

/END

— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 21, 2021

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1417891116758671364