SoylentNews

The tell: what makes it evidence, much less compelling evidence? Even if there was no climate change, one could pull these sort of stories out of one's ass.

The evidence is presented in the linked journal papers that discuss each of the three events that were listed. In short, because you don't want to click through and actually look at the papers, you're denying that there's any evidence. It's plainly obvious that you haven't even looked at any of the three papers that are linked on that webpage, and because you couldn't be bothered to click the links, you're pretending there's no evidence provided. That is incredibly lazy, and your reason to claim that no evidence was provided is asinine and disingenuous. The evidence is literally two clicks away from this comment: one to https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/three-extreme-events-that-were-not-possible-in-a-preindustrial-climate/ [ametsoc.org], the second to one of the three journal papers. You do understand how to identify and click links on a webpage, don't you? The linked articles are BAMS articles, which are intended to be more accessible to people with a general science background than, say, an article in Journal of Climate. BAMS is, of course, still a peer-reviewed journal.

Because they're simulations not actual observations of reality. Reliance on models instead of reality is a common symptom of the problems we have with climatology.

This is vague and unscientific. It is not a useful criticism. The models are verified against past climates, and generally do a good job of simulating the past. In this case, the models are simulating climates of the past and present day, which exactly what they've been verified against. This is not the same as the scenario of simulating future climates, which have more uncertainty because the models are being extrapolated into conditions for which there's currently no data to verify them against. But attribution studies involve simulating past and present climates. Models have been verified in these climatic conditions. They do a good job of replicating them.

Now, you could say that there's a problem with a specific model. There are flaws and biases in each model, sure. But you'd also be wrong to involve that argument, because the researchers were using data from CMIP5. It's a collection of data from many models [llnl.gov], so they didn't just rely on one model. They looked at simulations of preindustrial climates from a large number of models and none came close to replicating the extreme event. Because they used an ensemble of models, you can't say that flaws in a particular model prevented them from reproducing the extreme event.

Your criticism is unscientific and would be dismissed out of hand if you provided it as a peer reviewer.

TL;DR: These studies are simulating climates of the recent past. The simulations can be trusted because the models have been verified against those climates. There are many models, so the results aren't because one single model is flawed.

And I did.

No, you didn't. You are dismissing these studies out of hand because they're inconvenient for your political views.