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
Record Crops Reject Food Alarmism
Ours is an agricultural golden age, says Vijay Jayaraj. The air is richer in the compound that gives plants life. The weather is more conducive to growing food than it has been in centuries. The fabricated doomsday scenarios of the climate industrial complex are ludicrous.
The Climate Cult will eventually end
Fifty years from now, academic treatises will be written about the climate madness that once prevailed, says William Happer in a new book. “Climate nonsense will eventually end and will be dumped onto the ash heap of history where it belongs. But the longer the cult goes on, the more damage is done.”
Why are the media encouraging parents to make their children anxious about climate change?
The dominant mode of climate journalism in the mainstream Western press: a seamless fusion of advocacy, emotional appeal and selective empiricism in which no counterevidence need intrude and no sceptical voice need apply. Our children pay the price, says Tilak Doshi.
