This was one of the most confusing stories I’ve ever read.
First the author asserts:
The results of this study show that the damage inflicted by storms in the region was exacerbated by global warming, researchers said.
followed three sentences later by:
However, the scientists say they cannot directly link the frequency of the storms to climate change due to a lack of long-term data.
Um…is it just me or does that seem just slightly contradictory?
Interestingly, every direct quote of the “scientists” involved supports the second assertion, none support the first.
they say “the precise contribution of climate change to the event could not be quantified, due to the absence of comprehensive historical records of rainfall in the region”.
and yet, the researchers contend:
“Again we are seeing how the people with the least responsibility for climate change are bearing the brunt of the impacts. Rich countries should honour their commitments and increase much-needed funding for adaptation, and for compensating the victims of extreme events driven by climate change,” Dr Otto said.
In other words, the scientists have no actual evidence or proof that climate change has anything to do with the storms, but they want to believe that so that’s the conclusion they’re going to reach. So pay up.
Color me unconvinced.