Yes, but Climate Change absolutists do this /every single time/ there is a drought, or a hurricane, or a bad string of storms, a warm winter, or whatever. If you expect the other side to take the science seriously, you also can't turn a blind eye when politicians and media of a certain persuasion do the exact same thing in reverse.
They will never believe it. Their motivation for not believing in it is not based on facts, it is purely political / indoctrinated.
They will continually pick one thing or another to not believe it, and then when the evidence of change is insurmountable, they will claim humans aren't causing it. I've seen it time and time again here in Florida, it always goes back to 'well humans can't cause this'.
Obviously we have had extreme weather before, but many of the extremes we are seeing now are far, far outside normal (in some cases more than 100 times as common).
You might feel that every time an event comes up in the media, it is claimed it is because of climate change. Perhaps most of these extreme events are (or are at last much more common)?
We already know that climate change has an outsided impact on extreme events, particularly heatwaves, making them hotter, longer and more frequent. Many of these physics principles apply worldwide, so we end up seeing the fingerprint of cliamte change in extreme heatwaves across the world.
What is a “climate change absolutist”? I am sure you are aware that global warming does not happen just because some people believe in it, right? And that nobody is advocating for it.
Again, there are reasons why this specific event has contributing causes that would not exist in the absence of global warming.
> you also can't turn a blind eye when politicians and media of a certain persuasion do the exact same thing in reverse.
This is a straw man. The media are perfectly able to say exactly what other people have written here (global warming => increase in magnitude and frequency of extreme events), and politicians as well. And they do, more or less. Stop trying to find flaws in specific examples to confirm your political position. You are doing in reverse what others do when they cite Breitbart or OANN as a proof that conservatives are savages that cannot be reasoned with.