By that logic, you'll never reach any conclusions: any weather pattern is possible, theoretically. If one year of California being on fire for 4 months can just

By that logic, you'll never reach any conclusions: any weather pattern is possible, theoretically. If one year of California being on fire for 4 months can just be a coincidence, so can two years. Or twelve. One day of beating the temperature record by +5 deg F can also be less likely, and therefore better evidence of global warming, than, say, two separate events each breaking the record by +2 deg F. The magnitude matters. Here, some towns saw 150 mm of rain in 12 h. Previous monthly record (since 1945) was 200 mm. But really this is all silly. Look at that temperature color stripe and try telling anyone that the last 20 years are drawn from the same distribution as those before: https://ml1ohkphn9q1.i.optimole.com/Qi2pur4-vTGg4qbd/w:1080/h:675/q:auto/rt:fill/g:ce/https://forumeteoclimat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/warming-stripes.png https://ml1ohkphn9q1.i.optimole.com/Qi2pur4-vTGg4qbd/w:1080/... The denial was silly even a decade ago, which is about the time the political right switched to accepting warming, but rejecting a human contribution. By now everyone has noticed that's equally silly, since it'd be quite something if science predicted warming a decade in advance with surprising precision while getting the mechanism completely wrong. So that's where we are today, and the last remaining refuge really is to debate the magnitude of the problem and the value of trade-offs: who should do what against it, i. e. "...but cars in Texas are just 5% of global CO_2, it does not matter if we stop buying SUVs". That's really about values and not entirely accessible to rational arguments, so the remaining hope is that some of the harms just randomly hit the people opposing any action, and either kill or convince them.