Don't global warming deniers read their links?
The troll keeps claiming that the paper by Nguyen et al says that extreme weather events have not increased, but that paper doesn't address extreme events because of the methodology used. Didn't the troll even look at his own link?
The first time I posted this, he used his dozens of sock puppet accounts to get my question (and probably his own) deleted. I guess he can only win arguments if he has no opposition
Horse: you re-posted your question (anonymously) that claims the same wrong thing. If you think that paper addresses extreme events, why don't you point out to us where it does?
I kept looking for where the troll "Horse" was getting his "subject heading" that he kept referring to--now I see that it's from a different paper entirely, he was mixing them up, probably because he didn't read either one.