The idea that climate change should increase the variability of weather, the intensity of extreme events, and so on, seems intuitive to me in broad strokes. Smart people say that adding energy to a system increases its volatility, sure, ok, why would I doubt that.

But I would think that it would be an imperceptible statistical effect, given the relative amounts of energy (not the absolute amount, which is of course huge).

Is it possibly much larger than I think? Sure, absolutely. "Trust the science." But I can't trust anything based on intuition about particular events and unbiased memories of decades past.

The focus on individual events that feel wrong is unsettling to me. It used to be that people would say "climate change is real, the science is settled, deniers are tools of the fossil fuel industry" and other people would say "no, it's a religion and a scam designed to seize political power". Can't it be both a floor wax and dessert topping? What religion isn't based on deep truths, full of smart people, and often hijacked by power hungry monsters?