Weather isn't the same as climate. Oh, but if it rains a lot and it causes flooding, that's "climate change". It can be argued, and it is, that when the weather is not just perfect and some anomalous condition arises, ultimately it's because of our over indulgence of things carbon and according to the Washington Post (here) our carbon build-up is creating havoc for a women in Chicago:
Sewage gushed up Lori Burns’s toilet. It swept the floor. It wrecked the water heater, the deep freezer, her mother’s wedding veil.
This basement invasion was the third in five years. Burns, 40, could no longer afford to pay a cleanup crew. So she slipped on polka dotted rain boots, waded into the muck, wrenched out the stand-pipe and watched the brown water drain.
The South Side native, a marketing specialist, estimated damages at $17,000. And that did not include what she could not replace: the family heirlooms, the oriental rugs, her cashmere sweaters. The bungalow had flooded four times from 1985 to 2006, when her parents owned it. Lately, it flooded every other year. Burns felt nature was working against her. In a way, it was.
No scientist has ever proved that climate warming causes more rainfall in Chicago or anywhere else (okay smart guy, do a search and show I'm wrong). But more broadly, there are no mathematical models that demonstrate x amount of carbon will yield an x increase in warming. Till that is done reason compels me, and other scientists (but especially me), to not buy any of it.
The important thing to take away from this is that it is perfectly fine that there are scientists whom, for whatever reason, feel a need to promote climate change/global warming. It is even natural for the anti-capitalist crowd to cling to all these pseudo-science assumptions and "evidence" because it gives them the argument to regulate how we live along with a moral imperative to do so. The problem here is the Washington Post with their wildly absurd headline:
"Attack of the Chicago climate change maggots" whereby the Post has predetermined which side of the political argument they are aligning themselves in and from there reporting under the guise of an objective news story.
That rainfall in the last few years is a direct result of climate change is saying an awful lot. That it "can" or "may" cause more rain is subjective. That it does absolutely is not the case or proven to be the case. Whatever happened to "more drought" as in California? How long do you think it would take for me to find an article that attributes that to global warming? How would that jibe to "more rainfall" as a result of climate change?
As long as an article can state "scientist say" without showing exactly what it is they say; then the information has the appearance of facts. What one scientist says another may disagree particularly in the area of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, which is a relatively new study.
So is the Washington Post employing a journalistic slight-of-hand? Down into the article is this paragraph:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which calls itself the world’s largest non-government group science advocacy group, released a report this year called “What We Know,” which offers a nuanced look at climate change and its effects. The report concludes that natural disasters, like floods, are striking harder and more often. But, beyond anecdotes and weather projections, it adds, it’s hard to link one specific flood to carbon emissions.
But that certainly didn't stop the Post from attributing maggots in some ones basement to climate change, did it? The "American Association for the Advancement of Science" doesn't attribute the maggots to the floods and floods to climate change, but what the hell, let's write a story stating definitively that it does.
We should expect x=y when it comes to science. Not a "nuanced" look at climate change, what does that mean? The American Association of this that and the other thing is quoted in the article as saying:
Greenhouse gases have supercharged the climate, just as steroids supercharged hitting in Major League Baseball,” the report says. “Over the course of a baseball season in the steroid era, we witnessed more — and longer — home runs, even though we cannot attribute any specific homer to steroids. Similarly, even though we cannot attribute any particular weather event to climate change, some types of extreme events … are now more frequent
Voilà, Science! It's just like baseball. If Sammy Sosa is hitting all those home runs during the steroid era, ipso facto, he's doing steroids (which he was, but...) if a Chicago resident has maggots in her house its due to flooding from a lot of rainfall from a lot of carbon which is causing warming and climate change because the maggots appeared right at the time when all this was taking place. Science can't prove this conclusively, so we rely on a baseball analogy to make the case. Yea sure, I believe it now...not!