Press release GWPF: Event Attribution Studies are “a blot on science”, says Ralph B. Alexander
Extreme weather attribution studies are based on flawed logic and misleading statistical practices, according to a new report by The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Author Ralph B. Alexander argues that these studies, which link individual weather events to climate change, are driven more by political and legal agendas than by robust scientific evidence.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Date: 29 March 2026
Flawed Logic Behind Extreme Weather Attribution Studies
London, 24 March. Extreme weather attribution studies are based on flawed logic and generate misleading headlines, according to a new briefing paper from The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
In Contorted Science: The Flawed Logic of Extreme Event Attribution, Dr. Ralph B. Alexander argues that studies attempting to link specific heatwaves, hurricanes and floods to human-caused climate change are fundamentally misleading and have been created for legal and political, rather than scientific reasons.
The paper scrutinises recent high-profile studies by World Weather Attribution and the Grantham Institute. In 2025 alone, World Weather Attribution claimed that 24 of 29 extreme events examined were made more severe or more likely by climate change.
Alexander shows how such conclusions depend heavily on climate models that struggle to reproduce historical climate patterns and assume scientists can accurately simulate a “natural” climate without human emissions.
Questionable Methods and Statistical Practices
Some key recurring weaknesses are identified within attribution studies:
- Flawed logic: attribution claims involve “begging the question”, the act of simply assuming the conclusion you are trying to investigate.
- Statistical practices that inflate headline probability claims while downplaying uncertainty.
- The neglect of historical records showing comparable extreme events long before modern emissions levels.
Political Drivers and Scientific Concerns
The report traces the growth of rapid event attribution to political frustration with the cautious conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has expressed low confidence in long-term global trends for most types of extreme weather. It recognises the role of a 2012 meeting convened by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The meeting was aimed at strengthening the perceived link between extreme weather and climate change in order to pursue litigation against fossil fuel companies.
The report’s author, Ralph Alexander, said:
“Extreme event attribution studies are a blot on science, the hallmarks of which are empirical evidence and logic. Neither feature is central to attribution studies, which were created for legal and political not scientific reasons.”
Harry Wilkinson, Head of Policy at The Global Warming Policy Foundation said:
“It is disturbing that event attribution studies have got so much traction in the international media, despite their underlying flaws. This is a major scientific scandal.”
Read the full report: Contorted Science: The Flawed Logic of Extreme Event Attribution (pdf)
This press release was published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation on 24 March 2026. Our editorial team has added subheadings for readability.
more news
The Case for Abolishing the EU Emissions Trading System
For two decades, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) has been at the heart of the European Union's climate policy. Yet Samuel Furfari, former senior official at the European Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and emeritus professor of energy geopolitics, argues that the system rests on shaky legal foundations, undermines Europe's competitiveness and has evolved into an expensive political instrument. His conclusion is clear: the EU Emissions Trading System should be abolished.
The Pseudoscience behind Extreme Weather Attribution
Extreme weather attribution studies claim to determine how much human-caused climate change influences individual events such as hurricanes, floods and heatwaves. In this article, Ralph B. Alexander examines the scientific methods behind these studies and questions whether their conclusions are supported by reliable evidence.
Great Barrier Reef escapes UNESCO ‘In Danger’ listing again
UNESCO has once again decided not to place the Great Barrier Reef on its "In Danger" World Heritage List. Yet much of the international coverage continues to focus on climate warnings rather than on the broader picture of coral recovery. In this opinion article, Australian commentator Jo Nova argues that political narratives increasingly overshadow the underlying monitoring data. Drawing on Peter Ridd's analysis of Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) data, she contends that the Great Barrier Reef remains in far better condition than is commonly portrayed.
