I mean, really? You're going to completely ignore the part about the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society? And you're just moving the goalposts all

I mean, really? You're going to completely ignore the part about the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society? And you're just moving the goalposts all over the field. My original claims: * "We see stories saying that the storm of the week is caused by fossil fuels...commonly stated in prominent scientific journals, such as Nature." Your rebuttal: * Not by reputable climate scientists. * That I could not find any examples. My rebuttal: * Article in Nature quoting a report by reputable climate scientists claiming that "analyses from 18 research groups" show that "anthropogenic climate change was a contributing factor to half of" "12 extreme weather events from 2012." Your rebuttal: * It's an editorial, not a scientific paper. And that editorial quotes a scientific paper. And that editorial confirms my original claim. You 1) move the goalposts, 2) claim that I "can't find any examples" when in fact I did and you refused to even google it, and 3) completely ignore the "scientific paper" that you demanded and that I provided. And your next goalpost-moving is to argue over the phrase "storm of the week." I've substantiated my claims and answered your rebuttals with factual evidence. You've done nothing but assert that I'm wrong and tear down your strawmen. I rest my case. (For real, this time, because you're being intellectually dishonest. Your comments are effectively a form of trolling, using up my time providing proof while you contribute nothing. This is the sea-lioning tactic, wearing down one's opposition by unending, asymmetric argument.)