Two major separate studies emerged - one suggesting that natural climate variations were the main factor, another pointing to human-induced climate change.

As it turned out, they were both right. But it highlighted a flaw in how the relationship between individual weather events and climate change was being approached scientifically.

The first study set out to explore how climate change affected the severity of the heat wave, and found that natural variation was a greater factor. The second study investigated the impact climate change had on the likelihood of the event, finding with a probability of 80 per cent that the heat wave record would not have occurred without climate warming.

They were investigating different, but important, questions that did not need to be mutually exclusive. One looked at the anatomy of the extreme event to advance understanding of how climate change impacted it, the other helped to identify the type of events that might become more common.

These two approaches helped to inform the fastest growing area of climate research: "attribution science" - that is, identifying the extent at which climate change influences individual extreme events.

And in recent years, advances in this area have been rapid.

While scientists will always be cautious, and agree that it's impossible to attribute a weather phenomena directly to climate change, they can use comparisons between what would have occurred with, and without, the recent rapid increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - detailed in the Keeling Curve - and its subsequent impacts.

Using this modelling, more and more extreme events every year are being proven to be impossible without the effects of climate change - from marine heatwaves, like those experienced off Tasmania's coast, to the Four Corners drought in the US, Iberian peninsula heat waves and low sea ice in the Bering Sea.

Like with all areas of science, it is constantly being refined and improved with every paper.

It doesn't give exact predictions - it details the probability of each event using modelling to determine its likelihood in the future.

But it serves to highlight the immense logical fallacies committed by senator Eric Abetz in his recent column, in which he, again, exposed how he has failed to even attempt to engage with scientific rigour or discipline.

If there is one thing more flammable than Australia's arid bush prior to last year's devastating bushfires, it's the strawman arguments Senator Abetz inflicted upon Tasmanians. By cherry-picking predictions from decades ago to make the tenuous leap to declare climate change is not a threat, he seeks to completely misrepresent the way in which climate science works.

The revelation towards the end of his column that he was largely relying on Michael Shellenberger's book "Apocalypse Never" was interesting, but unsurprising. Abetz and Shellenberger come from the same school of thought - they assume the climate sceptic position, then seek data and facts to fit that position, including selectively quoting sources to misrepresent their meaning.

For example, Shellenberger tries to argue that the intensity and frequency of many types of extreme weather have not increased due to climate change, ignoring the immense amount of literature directly disproving this, such as the peer reviewed studies in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society's 2018 report, Explaining Extreme Events in 2018 from a Climate Perspective, detailing climate change's impact on 21 extreme weather events across the world.

Shellenberger's section on extinction and biodiversity is laughable, in which he claims "the biodiversity of islands has actually doubled on average, thanks to the migration of 'invasive species'". So if the native species go extinct, but are replaced by introduced species, then there's no problem?

And on the logical fallacies go.

Abetz claimed that climate "scare-mongering" would impact "jobs and economic well-being" for the next generations. But just this month the University of Tasmania made a submission to the government's draft Tasmanian Renewable Energy Action Plan, urging the state to capitalise on its renewable energy assets to benefit exporters and attract further economic activity and jobs.

It points to Victoria's Renewable Energy Target as bringing forward "significant investment in new renewable energy projects" by giving a clear signal to industry.

Having spent much of my upbringing in Adelaide's outer northern suburbs, with an acute understanding of the devastation of the loss of Holden, it's offensive to hear Abetz question job creation given he was a member of a government that goaded General Motors to leave Australia.

When I asked him if there was a missed opportunity for an electric vehicle industry at the Elizabeth plant - something the government could surely have assisted with had there been foresight or will - he replied: "that may have been a possibility". Oh well.

The fewer pure ideological warriors we have in Parliament, the better.

Over to you, Tasmanian Liberals.