Panama’s drought shows how trade disruptions from climate extremes can reverberate around the world, says the IMF

And if you expand point 3....

3.1 It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver¹⁴ of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006

A.3.2 The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have increased since the 1950s over most land area for which observational data are sufficient for trend analysis (high confidence), and human-induced climate change is likely the main driver. Human-induced climate change has contributed to increases in agricultural and ecological droughts¹⁵ in some regions due to increased land evapotranspiration¹⁶

That's from the Summary for Policymakers - very interpretive language, sometimes misleading/misinterpreted - for the AR6 report, it has come under a lot of criticism from some of the authors of the peer reviewed academic papers cited in the WG1 report..

Well, you've got it very right about "in the game".  Follow the money - as there's plenty of it!

• Adherence to alarmist, implausible, unlikely and unlawful sea level rise scenarios – has significant financial benefit to a wide number of bureaucratic and private sector elites in NZ society.
• These elites and the associated money streams are:
  • Central government politicians via campaign contributions to those parties seen to be taking a ‘hard-line’ on climate change/GHG emissions reductions.
  • Local government politicians via increased revenue/rates being needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change
  • Media via increased revenue via alarmism ‘click bait’, disaster headlines
  • Academia and CRIs via more government funded grants calling for more science that emphases how bad what might happen is.  No one funds science that tells you “nothing to see here”.
  • Private sector consultancy firms via lucrative contracts from councils to (District and Regional Councils) to write voluminous reports confirming how badly affected their area is.
  • Central and local government officials (like planners and infrastructure managers) for whom coastal management and climate change is a ‘make work’ scheme; someone has to contract out all the work that needs to be done because we don’t have the technical expertise and are short staffed as well.
  • Insurance companies via increased premiums in the short term – defended by science and local government maps outline effects that are implausible and unlikely to occur in the long term

• Put simply, climate alarmism is a money spinner for so many organisations that are extremely well funded already and benefiting further from the use of alarmist and implausible IPCC SSP5-8.5 high end emission scenario.  To keep the money flowing – they need to ‘hang on’ to that scenario regardless whether the IPCC now finds it to be (quoted words used by IPCC), “implausible” and “unlikely to unfold”.