Maybe I've misunderstood, I'm not a climatologist, but I thought climate change means certain events become more likely but it's still impossible to say if climate change caused any single individual event.

For example, if climate change makes it 7% more likely to rain somewhere, it doesn't mean every rainy day is climate change. You can only say climate change made it 7% more rainy on average.

So climate change increases the chance of phenomena like "World's largest iceberg", but you can't say for sure if this iceberg in particular was generated by climate change.

I think that's all the article was trying to say with "could"

Antarctica has always been losing its ice shelves like this - and accumulating new ice inland to replace them. You can't really pin one event on climate change, only general statistics like rate of ice loss or size of remaining ice shelves.

Just like WHO can't point to evidence before it is established, scientists can't conclude prematurely. It's kind of like keeping an open mind. Then it's not about which tribe you belong to.

Well, yes, but this iceberg is located in Antarctica. Basically the opposite side of the Planet.

Comment removed? I don't suppose HN is removing comments now is it?