> #2 is flat out wrong because, see my quote above, the article makes it clear that the scientific consensus is still that individual events cannot be directly attributed to climate change.
Scientific consensus doesn't make something true. Climate change is true because we measure it, not because most scientists say it is. This is an active area of research, a brand-new area in fact, and making claims like "Storms cannot be blamed on climate change" is absolutely incorrect. We're still finding out the answers to those kinds of questions, and just now it's become potentially feasible to actually do it (blame climate change for a specific event).
> #1 is wrong because nothing has changed.
What? Of course things have changed. That's what this whole article is about. The methods are maturing and data access is growing - the nature of publishing a peer reviewed paper that blames all or part of an event on climate change is now an accepted practice and it wasn't before. This is change.
I still see no issue at all with the headline. It is a perfect fit for the article and is not wrong in any way.
Edit: I've been banned from HN for a while I guess, unable to comment any more. I'll respond quickly to the comment below:
> > Scientific consensus doesn't make something true
> This is the same argument the denialist use. I am not sure how it is relevant to anything.
You cut up my paragraph and removed the context from my comment in order to make me look like a climate change denier. I'm not. Why did you do that?
> > making claims like "Storms cannot be blamed on climate change" is absolutely incorrect
> Nobody made that claim.
I never said they did.