All—As In All—Of The “Climate Change Made This Event More Likely” Claims Are False

All—As In All—Of The “Climate Change Made This Event More Likely” Claims Are False

Here’s a typical recent propaganda headline: “Climate change made Libya flooding 50 times more likely: Report.

This is not so.

Here’s another recent one from PBS: “Climate change made global summer droughts 20 times more likely

Also not true.

The Guardian, recent: “Current heatwave across US south made five times more likely by climate crisis.


AP, recent: “Heat wave in Asia made 30 times more likely because of climate change, scientists say“.


There are only a handful from an ever-increasing supply. The genre is now routine. Indeed, headlines like these are now seen whenever a weather-related event classified as “bad”, like a flood, is identified. Once the event is tagged, somebody rushes to microphone and says “climate change” did it.

No. This can’t be known.

To explain why these headlines are always great nonsense, and therefore propaganda, I have written two technical papers. And two posts describing their outlines: “Climate Attribution Studies Can’t Be Trusted” and “How the IPCC Sees What Isn’t There“.

The papers are somewhat technical, but I think most regular readers, since they are demonstrably superior to the average man, can handle them.

This post is meant to serve as a remember, one you can send to people or groups or rulers who tout headlines like those above.

Here is one simple argument why these headlines are false, with a word after about the other arguments against attributions.

Simple Argument

A climate model makes a prediction of the probability of some event, like a “heat wave”, whatever that means. This gives a number, like 10%. (The real numbers are usually much smaller, which is important, but I’m making them big to make the math easier for the reader.)

A second climate model makes a prediction of the probability of the same event, only this model is meant to represent an atmosphere that has less carbon dioxide in it. This also gives a number, say 1%.

It is then announced “Current heatwave made ten times more likely by climate crisis.” Because ten times 1% equals 10%.

With me? Then you should be able to tell me now—you have all the information you need, though some of it is tacit—to tell us why that headline, like all the others, is great nonsense.

Need a hint? The models.

Try and think this through before reading more. It will do you good.

Did you have a go?

The math is not wrong. It’s ten times more, just as claimed. The problem is the models. How in the unholy hellfire can the model claim there is a 10% chance of this heatwave? I mean, it can claim it, but how do we know the model is right? In order for all this attribution stuff to work the model not only has to be right, it has to be perfect.

May I repeat that? It has to be perfect.

That means that 10% must be calibrated. If you know what this is, you know. If not, it is a technical requirement—one not demonstrated by any of the models used by IPCC scientists. Which in a way is not their fault, because calibrating these models on every conceivable kind of weather event, while it is not logically impossible, is practically impossible.

It has not been done.

Which means there is no way to know if the model is spouting nonsense with that initial 10%. None. As in none. By which I mean none. No way.

What makes it all worse, and much much worse, is that 10% is usually something very much smaller, many orders of magnitude smaller (technical details are in the papers). Which makes calibration even more impossible. And which makes all claims risible.

The second problem is the second model. It’s entirely counterfactual. It makes, or claims to make, a prediction of an atmosphere which does not exist. And cannot exist. We have the atmosphere we have, and not the one with so much less CO2.

This means that not only is calibrating this second model impossible, it can never be checked for accuracy using any observation whatsoever.

It is not logically impossible to make counterfactual probability statements. We do so continuously. But they can never be checked, you see. Never verified.

Which means we end up with two impossible numbers, the 10% and 1%. And thus the resulting change in two impossible numbers, that ten times, is itself impossible.

The beauty of all this, if you’re a propagandist, or Expert in need of manufacturing evidence to keep his job, is that, while you cannot prove by any observation that you are right, I cannot prove by any observation you are wrong.

So you can go on making these asinine predictions forever. And can get away with it.

Other Arguments

Right now in the far north of the greatest state in the coerced Union, the weather is perfect. Not just good: perfect. Mid 70s, sunny, low breeze. Gorgeous. It could not be made better. The beasts and the birds are out, reveling. One told me how happy he was.

Given this pristine atmosphere, do you therefore suppose we shall see the following headline? And if not, why not? In that why not you will discover why “climate change” is yet another in a long string of idiot panics.

Headline: “Current Eden-like ideal weather made ten times more likely by climate change.”

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email:, and please include yours so I know who to thank.


  1. This is the new attribution junk science.

    Often used to conflate weather events with climate.
    Or to blame poor dam construction on the weather
    Almost any bad news is blamed on climate change.
    If your dog dies — must be because of climate change!

    Attribution junk science is more believable with a statistic applied to the claim. Preferably from a climate confuser program, which impresses many people. They have no idea, it seems, that computers do not produce data — they output whatever they were programmed to output (the opinions of the programmers).

    Attribution junk science fails at the highest level, which Climate Howlers refuse to debate: Humans have no idea how much climate change is natural versus manmade. The Climate Howlers have spent over 40 years, since 1979, claiming to know. The IPCC made it official in 1995 when they declared that all natural causes of climate change were “noise”. That was the year the illusion of real climate science ended.

    Real science requires data. The prediction of CAGW, since the 1979 Charney Report, is not based on data. There are no historical data for CAGW, because CAGW has never happened. There are never data for the future. That adds up to no data for CAGW. And no data adds up to no science.

    Climate change is actually a wild guess, data free, wrong since 1979, prediction of climate doom. And after 44 years of propaganda, many people ignore the actual, pleasant climate, and fear the future climate will get worse despite 44 years of wrong climate predictions. There is no solution for that lack of common sense and intelligence.

  2. Rex8or Prime Legitimax

    We just need three or four identical Earths / solar systems / galaxies with enough time – millions of years perhaps – to make relevant changes for one of the Earths then we’ll have some proper numbers to look at.

  3. William Tittle

    The new response to “have you actually plotted the data”..

    “You don’t know how science works!”

    “Science is just about the visualization of data”

  4. Brad Tittle

    With UFOs/UAPs all the rage these days…

    “The photos of UFOs are clearer than the climate data”.

  5. Cary D Cotterman

    “Blah, blah, blah, reports PBS”

    “Blah, blah, blah, reports NPR”

    Whenever I see anything resembling those statements, I skip to the next item.

  6. Johnno

    I can do you one better!

    Have two separate studies conducted at the same time by separate teams.

    Study 1 – Climate Change will cause at least 1% more rainfall next year.

    Study 2 – Climate Change will cause at least 1% less rainfall next year.

    When the results roll in, bury the one that was wrong, and promote the one that came true in the headlines –

    CLIMATE CHANGE STUDY PREDICTING (x) amount of rainfall last year COMES TRUE!
    Scientists are raising the alarm that their predictions are being ignored.

    Blah Blah Blah Blabbabity blah…

  7. Uncle Mike

    Gotta love those counterfactuals. They’re the things that didn’t happen, that never were. It’s comparing apples to unicorns. If only [fill in the blank with something imaginary]. Pure fantasy masquerading as Science. Gaze into my crystal ball … see the unicorn within. His name is Pokey.

  8. Just a short note for you Mr. Briggs, I have a killer headache caused by climate change. I was wondering if you’ve ever read Dr. Roy Spencer.
    The reason I mention him is he takes a similar interest the modelling problems.
    One comment I found interesting in connection to the heat Island effect [The sensors are placed near cities. As the density of the city increases, it creates spuriously high readings.]
    is that the actual temperature of the earth requires a model to estimate the average. Those predictive models are using the same parameters as those they use to estimate their predictions.

  9. I have a theory that it is impossible to prove exactly what caused the global warming after 1975, but I can’t prove it.

    However, I am certain the climate will get warmer in the future, unless it gets colder.

  10. Joe Moffa

    I one needs to do is follow history and the destruction of Libya by the one and only Hillary Clinton.

    Libya’s ongoing destruction belongs to Hillary Clinton more than anyone else. It was she who pushed President Barack Obama to launch his splendid little war, backing the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi in the name of protecting Libya’s civilians. When later asked about Gaddafi’s death, she cackled and exclaimed: “We came, we saw, he died.”
    What has died more than Moammar Gaddafi is the country and its infrastructure.
    Prior to Hillary, Libya was the most prosperous and best functioning country is Africa. After Gaddafi was murdered the country has fallen into disrepair. The dams that failed is just another indication of how the country and deteriorated beyond the human deterioration.
    So, Hillary and Bill are now in the prospect of rebuilding Ukraine. Of course they ripped off Hati. I would like to see them walk in that country after robbing them of millions of dollars promised.

  11. Joe Moffa

    Libya Dam Disaster Shows Horrific Consequences of US/NATO Imperialism
    The misery and carnage, which rippled out from a dismembered Libya, was unleashed in the name of democratization, nation-building, promoting the rule of law and human rights.

    If you want to know the facts here they are:

  12. Aderivaldo Cabral

    But Briggs, I have a wonderful proof of these models, but this comment box is too small to contain it…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *