Search Climate Insights Directory

The workshop explored how the tobacco industry's history of disinformation and the subsequent legal breakthroughs—specifically the discovery of internal documents—could inform strategies to hold fossil fuel companies accountable. Participants discussed various legal avenues, including public nuisance and RICO lawsuits, the scientific challenges of attributing specific climate damages to individual producers, and the need for a compelling public narrative to move beyond scientific evidence and mobilize public action.

The document outlines how scientists use climate models, atmospheric records, and carbon isotope signatures to prove that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of global warming since the mid-20th century. It highlights the consensus among the scientific community and major bodies like the IPCC, while noting that attribution science can now link specific extreme weather events to climate change.

The document discusses the application of extreme event attribution to understand the role of climate change in specific weather events, using two Indian case studies to illustrate the complexities of vulnerability and the masking effects of aerosols.

The Raising Risk Awareness (RRA) project focused on applying extreme event attribution to understand the role of climate change in specific weather events in Ethiopia, India, and Kenya, while using the Surging Seas tool to assess coastal flooding risk in Bangladesh. The project sought to bridge the gap between science, communication, and policy to improve disaster risk management in developing countries.

The synopsis asserts that the petroleum industry was unequivocally warned of climate change by 1968 and that internal documents from companies like Exxon show a stark contrast between their internal scientific certainty and their public campaigns of disinformation. It highlights that while these companies protected their own infrastructure from rising sea levels and warming, they funded 'AstroTurf' organizations and misinformation plans to ensure the public viewed climate science as uncertain. The document also notes that attribution science now allows for the tracing of specific climate impacts to individual companies, providing a legal basis for accountability.

The document outlines contrasting legal positions between major polluting States and a majority of other participants concerning the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on climate change. It focuses on whether the UN climate regime is the exclusive source of law, the binding nature of mitigation and adaptation obligations, the applicability of the transboundary harm principle, the role of human rights law, the rights of future generations, and the legal necessity of phasing out fossil fuels. It further examines the issues of State knowledge of climate risks since the 1960s, the possibility of attributing harm to specific States, and the resulting legal consequences, including reparations and cessation of harmful conduct.

The report argues that many high-emitting governments knew about the link between fossil fuel combustion and global warming as early as the 1960s, triggering legal duties to prevent harm long before the 1990s. It uses a timeline of scientific milestones and country-specific evidence to challenge claims by States that awareness only emerged in the late 1980s, linking this knowledge to the 'no-harm' principle of customary international law.

The document defines key scientific terms used in event attribution, such as 'factual' and 'counterfactual' worlds, and outlines legal tests for proving causation, including the 'but for' and 'material contribution' tests, primarily within the context of UK law.

Climate Central analysis reveals that human-caused climate change is the primary driver of spring warming in 98% of 241 analyzed U.S. cities between 1970 and 2025. On average, spring temperatures in these cities rose by 2.6F, with the most significant warming occurring in the Southwest, South, and Southeast. The analysis indicates that 69% of these cities had all of their spring warming explained by human-caused climate change. This trend is associated with an increase in warmer-than-normal spring days, which the report links to prolonged allergy seasons, heightened wildfire risk, and reduced snow-fed water supplies in the western U.S.

The document serves as a manual for journalists to avoid common errors when linking specific weather events to climate change. It details the methodology of 'event attribution studies'—which use climate models to compare the current world with a pre-industrial one—and provides specific guidance on reporting heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires. The guide emphasizes that while climate change increases the probability and intensity of many extremes, it is rarely the sole cause, and local factors like land use and water management often play critical roles in turning a weather event into a disaster.

The report investigates the May 2022 extreme rainfall event in Eastern Northeast Brazil, which caused 133 deaths and displaced over 25,000 people. Observational analysis indicates that 7-day and 15-day rainfall events of this magnitude are exceptionally rare in the current climate, with return periods of approximately 1-in-500 and 1-in-1000 years, respectively. While climate models exhibited systematic errors in precipitation magnitudes for this specific event, the authors conclude that human-caused climate change is at least partially responsible for increasing the likelihood and intensity of such rainfall. The study further highlights that structural vulnerabilities, including unplanned urbanisation in low-income neighbourhoods and an infrastructure deficit, significantly exacerbated the disaster's impact.

The document explains the science of extreme event attribution, which calculates how climate change alters the probability and intensity of specific weather events. It provides a detailed breakdown of how climate change influences heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, blizzards, droughts, and wildfires, while cautioning journalists against three common errors: ignoring climate change, attributing events without evidence, or treating climate change as the sole cause. It emphasizes that while global trends are clear for some phenomena (like heatwaves), others (like blizzards) remain highly uncertain.

The document explains how 'Extreme Event Attribution' research determines the extent to which climate change makes specific weather events more likely or intense. It warns journalists against three common errors: ignoring climate change, attributing events without evidence, or naming it as the sole cause. The guide provides detailed scientific contexts for heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires, noting that while some links (like heatwaves) are globally certain, others (like droughts or snowfall) are more complex and region-specific.

The document explains 'extreme event attribution'—the scientific method used to determine if and how much climate change influenced a specific weather event. It warns journalists against three common mistakes: ignoring climate change, attributing events without evidence, or citing it as the sole cause. The guide provides detailed analysis for heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snow, droughts, and fires, noting that while heatwaves are unilaterally linked to global warming, other events like droughts and snowfall have more complex, region-specific relationships with climate change. It emphasizes that disasters result from both extreme weather and societal vulnerability.

The document explains the methodology of 'extreme event attribution' to help journalists avoid common errors, such as ignoring climate change or attributing an event to it as a sole cause. It details how scientists use climate models to compare the modern world with a pre-industrial one to determine if an event was more likely or intense due to global warming. The guide provides specific scientific consensus and limitations for heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires, emphasizing that while some connections are robust (e.g., heatwaves), others are more complex and depend on regional data and human vulnerability.

The document explains the science of extreme event attribution, detailing how researchers use climate models and historical data to determine if climate change made a specific event more likely or intense. It provides specific guidance on reporting various phenomena—heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, snowfall, droughts, and wildfires—highlighting where scientific confidence is high and where uncertainties remain.

The study finds that while overall spring minimum temperatures are increasing, human-caused warming has advanced the start of the growing season (bud burst), exposing plants to more intense frosts. The April 2021 event in central France is attributed in part to this shift, with models projecting an increase in the frequency of such growing-period frosts in a 2°C warmer climate.

The document serves as a style guide for journalists to avoid common errors when attributing extreme weather to climate change. It explains the methodology of event attribution studies—comparing simulated worlds with and without human influence—and provides specific guidance on reporting heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires. The guide emphasizes that while climate change increases the probability and intensity of many events, it is rarely the sole cause, and social vulnerability often determines whether a weather event becomes a disaster.

The document explains 'event attribution' science, which quantifies how climate change alters the probability and intensity of specific weather events. It provides a detailed breakdown of how climate change affects heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires, while cautioning journalists against common errors such as treating climate change as the sole cause of a disaster or ignoring it entirely. It emphasizes that while some trends are globally consistent (e.g., heatwaves), others are regionally variable or complex (e.g., droughts and snowfall).

The study finds that the July 2019 heatwave in Western Europe was made significantly more likely and intense by human-induced climate change. In France and the Netherlands, the event would have been extremely improbable without human influence, with return periods exceeding 1,000 years. Across all analyzed locations, the heatwave was 1.5 to 3 °C hotter than it would have been in an unchanged climate. The analysis utilized a combination of observational data and eight climate model ensembles, noting that while models generally underestimate temperature trends and overestimate variability, they still simulate large probability changes.