So after a few data points, we're already declaring that a huge stochastic system has now suddenly turned deterministic? smh
Imagine a normal symmetric binomial distribution, along a X-axis of events and severity. Now imagine that the binomial distribution isn't normal and symmetric anymore, it is skewed toward the X-axis of more severe events (i.e. a negative skew). In this model, we still have the same number of events, but their distribution along the severity axis is skewed towards more severe events, and as such they have a higher probability of happening.
We do? Have we determined the duration where we can declare the climate process stationary (in a stochastic sense, of course)?
I'm a big fan of the Socratic approach but when people use it as a cudgel they're usually less interested in the answer than in positioning themselves as the questioning authority for the emotional impact upon an audience. Watch a B movie with the sound off or a foreign language film with no subtitles; you may not be able to follow the plot that well but you can easily tell who is supposed to be winning or losing each scene by observing the characters' demeanor. Same dynamic often obtains in internet arguments.