> For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. A

> For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. And yet you have a very well known meteorologist who is claiming that it isn't anthropogenic. I totally agree that the general increase in aggregate anomalous events cannot be explained away beyond a reasonable. You can't, however, look at a single event and know without a doubt that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 without some sort of bounds on that claim. > Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. But see, for this specific event, there is a chance of falsifiability. If there is any evidence of two mega El Nino events within a 17 year time span anywhere between 1700 and 1970, you have falsifiable evidence. And that is what is being asked...you made a claim that this specific climate event is without a doubt due to global warming and you were asked to provide some basis for that assertion.