Why are we attributing weather to climate? I hear this many times during a discussion when someone mentions cold weather and global warming, yet so many of these articles do exactly this.
I don't think this article is attributing individual weather events to climate. It states that climate change can increase the severity / impact of weather events. The closest this article comes is to use the phrase "climate-related disasters".
I think most scientists are still wary of attributing individual weather events to climate change, or even attributing severity of specific events to climate change. They will however draw correlations between the rate of severe events appearing, and climate change.
But advocates on either side of this debate (or others) often times are sufficiently aware of that struggle with complexity as to exploit it in argumentation. So what you point out is absolutely fair... as is the observation of the original poster.
In this subject or any other where speakers are likely to be strongly emotionally or philosophically bound to their position, you must first consider the speaker/writer/etc. and then use that to gauge any particular argument they might make. ...and this is complex, too... you can be right and still engage in undue overstatement or trivialization to make your point.
tl;dr: Don't take anything at face value. Facts can be painted in many different colors. Don't merely accept, be judgmental.
The difficulty caused by current climate advocates is that even if they are alarmed to the right degree, they're alarmed in the wrong direction.
This is actively harmful because the strategies for dealing with problems caused by cold temperatures are different than the strategies for warmth. An example is crop failure: you can breed for frost or you can breed for flooding, but you may or may not be able to breed for both, but are more likely to find strategies for just one or the other depending on where your investment goes. If we've just invested in growing crops which are flood-resistant instead of frost-resistant, our food supply can be blind-sided.
This implies that through climate advocacy, billions of dollars have been invested in a systematically biased way which is not only wasteful to some extent or another, but amplifies our fragility/reduces our resilience. That's a lot to chew on. The consequences are far-reaching.
It's generally a bad approach to resilience if you're not dealing with each worst case rather than some worst-case you're expecting. A worst case you're expecting is almost an oxymoron.
The good news is that we'll have a longer temperature window to invest in technologies that will help us eliminate carbon-based problems which will have knock-on effects on other emerging systemic risks, like water and air pollution by micro plastics, or an energy crisis.
But welcome to 2019 Internet, random websites (ironically, so are the links I posted) claiming all sorts of things, misciting authorities like NASA or reputable journalistic institutes. Like blogs with "eco" in the URL taking the diagram of how the Fukushima quake caused a small tsunami in California and screaming "This diagram shows Fukushima radiation reaching California!"...
But well, climate change will also cause extreme winter events, as well as deadly summer heatwaves. What's your point?
You'll need to provide some better evidence of the scientific consensus turning around that those two links since they're not that compelling.
A well referenced link that provides evidence against the solar cycle cooling theory is here:
"Peer-reviewed research, physics, and math all tell us that a grand solar minimum would have no more than a 0.3°C cooling effect, barely enough to put a dent in human-caused global warming."
I think most scientists are still wary of attributing individual weather events to climate change, or even attributing severity of specific events to climate change. They will however draw correlations between the rate of severe events appearing, and climate change.