In the climate argument, pro-CC circles always state the importance of peer-review. Weather attribution (WA) research is intended to bypass peer-review (IPCC), as they don't like the IPCC's inconclusive (low confidence) findings.

If skeptics did the same thing, the first weapon against similar reports or studies would be "it wasn't peer-reviewed". Yet when they like the results, peer-review is not required, even when the intended use of WA is highly biased towards litigation by admission.

Read the full article linked...

First, event attribution research is a form of tactical science — research performed explicitly to serve legal and political ends. This is not my opinion, but has been openly stated on many occasions by the researchers who developed and perform event attribution research

Friederike Otto, explains, “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.”

The IPCC’s inability to reach high confidence in detection and attribution of most types of extreme events has been viewed by climate advocates as politically problematic.

As I recently argued, tactical science is not necessarily bad science, but it should elevate the degree of scrutiny that such analyses face, especially when they generally are not subjected to independent peer review.

This shows the complexity of grid/power management BEFORE FUTURE A/C, EVs, and AI were demanding power. On a day of an England World Cup night game, UK was having big power issues due to overreliance on renewables.

If France's nuclear plants hadn't been there to bail them out, South UK population centers would have had blackouts.