Skip to content

The Climate Blame Game

April 14, 2021

By Paul Homewood


I have long challenged attribution studies which blame extreme weather on climate change. I have however been unable to question the statistics behind it, as it is not my expertise.

Fortunately the eminent statistician, William Briggs, has identified the flaws behind this so-called science:




Dr Briggs points out that most attribution claims are based around comparing simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. But as he explains, this approach has a fundamental problem:

“We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity. Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like.”

And Dr Briggs also points out that even if we did know, it would still not be enough.

“In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong.”

Attribution studies assume that the weather has been getting worse, yet empirical observations do not support this generic assumption.

Dr Briggs’s paper is entitled The Climate Blame Game: Are we really causing extreme weather (pdf)



This is the paper’s conclusion:



  1. April 14, 2021 10:21 am

    The weird bureaucratic origins of “Event Attribution Science”.

  2. April 14, 2021 10:46 am

    So might it not be true that owning a Rolls-Royce causes gout? There’s a very clear link. Now you’ll also tell me that the sky isn’t going to fall in, but I thought the evidence was very clear, given the huge weight of CO2 released.

  3. April 14, 2021 10:54 am

    This paper’s conclusions should be tattooed on Bunter Johnson’s forehead so that his personal climate expert, a.k.a Princess Nut Nuts, can read it every time she kisses him goodnight (with apologies for any nausea such a thought might cause amongst readers!)

  4. Andrew Harding permalink
    April 14, 2021 10:55 am

    Its called common sense, a factor which is greatly exceeded by hysteria in climate ‘science’!

    To attribute the effect of humans on any global scientific study, there needs to be a baseline comparison where humans are not present.

    Since humans have been on Earth for several hundreds of thousand years and scientific methodology has only been used for a few hundred years, a definitive comparison is impossible.

  5. Patsy Lacey permalink
    April 14, 2021 11:25 am

    Climate activists have long used the supposedly critically endangered polar bear to push the global warming (climate change) agenda. This is the latest emotionally charged piece.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      April 14, 2021 12:47 pm

      Also in Daily Mail online

  6. Broadlands permalink
    April 14, 2021 1:29 pm

    “We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity. Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like.”

    We have a reasonably good idea of what the overall climate was like in the geological past…

    Nature 461, 1110-1113 (22 October 2009)
    Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition

    Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster, Bridget S. Wade

    “Geological and geochemical evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition 33.5–34.0 million years ago. Modelling studies suggest that such ice-sheet formation might have been triggered when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell below a critical threshold of ~750 p.p.m.v. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2 was between 450 and 1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of 760 p.p.m.v.”

    The plant life on land was lush and although the pH of the oceans was much lower than now the carbonate-secreting plankton thrived. With CO2 more than double today’s value the climate was mild. It is, however, quite true that we have no idea of what the extreme weather was like and probably never will.

  7. David V permalink
    April 14, 2021 2:50 pm

    When I started looking at “climate change” a few years ago, I naturally went first to the IPCC reports. Having been forewarned, I avoided the summaries for policy makers and went for the detail. One of the conclusions, presented with very high probability, was that there had been an “increase in extreme weather events”. The report went on to say that this mostly comprised an increased duration of heat waves and a reduced duration of cold spells. The duration of heat waves was reported to have increased from 4 days to 4.5 days (or something very similar), with an equivalent reduction in cold spells – nothing more than the expected consequence of the reported increase in temperature.

  8. dave permalink
    April 15, 2021 11:03 am

    “…increase [sic] in temperature…”

    RSS agrees with UAH about considerable drop (- 0.2 C), in satellites’ brightness-
    temperature tropospheric anomalies data, from February to March 2021.

    From February 2016 (an El Nino time) to March 2021 (a La Nina time) the difference
    is – 0.8 C.

    Heat ‘waves’ and cold ‘waves’ are distinct REGIONAL WEATHER phenomena. The increased waviness of the jet streams is the probable reason for the intrusions becoming a little more frequent.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: