The article attached would not be read by many Gulchers due to the assumed content. Perhaps it shouldn't. Still, I cannot help but be struck by the strangeness of the title itself. The particular article title is "Climate change made Louisiana's catastrophic floods much more likely". Now, setting aside even legitimate arguments against climate change, please take a closer look at the title itself. The claim is that a process made (past tense) a past event more probable. In the common usage, the words likely or probable tend to denote future events -- events such as economic growth or decline, Iranian adherence or revocation of nuclear agreements, rain or shine.

This is because the probability of a past event occurring is a unity. The probability of the Spanish Inquisition is 1. We know this as historical fact. The probability of a leaning tower leaning is 1. We open our eyes and see the angle that tower makes with the earth. And no one is going to bet on a coin toss that has already occurred.

Now, we can bet on the result of something that has happened under the guise that we just don't have all the information. But the truth is, either the spaceship made it to Pluto or did not. Betting on it won't affect the outcome. So it is with the example provided by the article. The application of probability to a past event, is, at best, gambling on a scientific process.

Climate change fallacies range across the spectrum. The particular argument reference in the article's title I would classify as Argument From Ignorance or Non-Testable Hypothesis or Non Sequitur.

How would you classify this fallacy?

In summary, assigning a probability to a past event is a new means of disinformation. It relies on the concept of probability while destroying it's foundation. It is a stolen concept.