The argument turns circular because while climate models predicts climate change, they have variations and do not predict local weather. They can imply higher r

The argument turns circular because while climate models predicts climate change, they have variations and do not predict local weather. They can imply higher risk and using statistics you can say there's a very low chance these events (magnitude and number), is due to normal weather alone. However, statistics won't tell the whole story. Since everything is changing permanently, there's only one time a dam will collapse. The best people to ask would be credible climate scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals. For example: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ If determining wether a bridge is sound or not: Do you run statistics over how many people get safely across, and run trends on random internet searches? Or do you invite specialists to assess the bridge?