For years now, headlines linking climate change to extreme weather events have dominated public debate. Articles suggesting extreme weather events were made many times worse because of climate change are bound to grab people’s attention; however, their scientific basis is fundamentally flawed. A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation explains the mistaken reasoning behind these dramatic claims.

So-called attribution science attempts to simulate extreme weather events without the impact of anthropogenic climate change. But the global climate is notoriously unpredictable and complex, meaning that modelling a world that separates our already variable climate from man-made climate change is nigh-on impossible. The risks of using such uncertain projections to dictate policy include misallocating resources, imposing unnecessary economic burdens and limiting flexibility to adapt as scientific understanding evolves.

Consider the reporting of a recent heatwave in the Southern US and Mexico. World Weather Attribution stated that this event was 35 times as likely to happen due to man-made climate change. Detailed extreme weather records have only been around in the modern era, and in many countries these records only go back a matter of decades, if at all. How can a body accurately model a world without any human activity at all? Attribution claims simply assume that these modelled results are correct: a logical fallacy known as ‘begging the question’.

Despite claiming to represent the scientific community, attribution researchers have developed ways of avoiding scrutiny from their peers. Rapid attribution studies are often promoted through press releases, giving striking figures time to hit the headlines without the scrutiny of peer review. By the time anyone can examine the assumptions behind claims, they have already been reported around the world.

In the report, Ralph Alexander explains the origin of these studies: developed with cynical objectives in mind. He describes how a 2012 meeting of climate scientists, lawyers and policy experts was revealed to have promoted rapid attribution studies to pursue climate litigation against fossil fuel companies. Climate lawfare activists needed stronger evidence than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was able to provide from conventional observational studies showing that most forms of extreme weather were not becoming more frequent.

Too often, alarming statistics on extreme weather events are released to suit political goals and the news cycle rather than being firmly underpinned by science. This may be accompanied by reputational damage for those who stray from the judgement of major climate bodies. For example, Roger Pielke Jr., a well-respected climate scientist, was branded a ‘denier’ by critics after challenging what he described as the politicisation of climate science. Pielke received condemnation for declaring in a Wall Street Journal article: “I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action. … But my research led me to a conclusion that… there is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense.”

The scientific community ought to hear dissenting views, provided they are supported by evidence. The reality, unfortunately, is that critics can be demonised and hounded out, even if they are criticising extreme weather attribution models, which cannot be proven with certainty.

Read More: It’s Time to Stop the Misleading ‘Extreme Weather’ Headlines