Is adverse weather mistaken for climate change? The age of politicized science

With the advent of the "climate cult", adverse weather conditions are espoused as proof of climate change.

Adverse weather like cold snaps, heat waves, torrential rain and floods, hurricanes, and other weather phenomenon, are now given prime time media slots, where a causal connection to climate change is claimed. In addition, climate change is no longer defined as a natural occurring event, the inference to climate change suggest these events are the result of human activities.

The more adverse weather events shown in the media, the more people believe climate change is the cause. These causality suggestions create an availability heuristic, reinforces the perception these events are the result of climate change. We now have a tendency to believe that adverse weather is associated with climate change, through a socially created input bias about climate change. We also believe these events are more common that before. Most, particularly the young, believe this 'as reality', which adds to the fear of climate change.

Lifetime memories for older generations are impossible to quantify. The underlying reality is there have always been adverse weather conditions, that may or may not be occurring more regularly than previous times. Through these input biases, most succumb to the power of suggestion, adverse weather is more frequent and more violent than previously.

The climate cult

A climate cult has emerged through the media, and has its heroes and those who espouse doomsday scenarios. Any extreme weather is deemed to be proof of climate change. Climate change has become a massive industry in itself with speakers earning large sums of money from speaking and books. There is no way to objectively determine the validity of this claim that adverse weather is a symptom of climate change, as weather records only go back less than 200 years.

There are many regional and global phenomenon like El Nino and La Nina that push weather into long cycles. There are numerous other factors including celestial, land surface, ocean, and subterranean that influence these cycles of weather in the short and long term. Therefore the connection between weather cycles and climate change is difficult to accurately determine.

Any disagreement about links between adverse weather and climate change, lead to accusations of being a climate denier. Evidence now clearly shows public discourse on climate change has been suppressed. Going against the narrative is getting people sidelined professionally, where they become banned from publishing in journals, books, and even social media.

This is not a healthy environment for science.

The US EPA claims that climate change is associated with extreme weather and such events as heat waves and large storms, that are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change. Any search on the Google search engine will not bring up any websites or papers that dispute this. The climate cult uses adverse weather as a sign of proof of climate change.

Is climate change science complete?

Many claim the science of climate change is complete. There are also claims that there is a general consensus by scientists about climate change. If this is the case, then climate change is uniquely the only field of science, that is complete.