NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters Are Not Evidence of Climate Change
Weather and climate disaster losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP have not increased between 1990 and 2019, a new study finds.

"Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters broke U.S. record in 2023, NOAA says," reported PBS earlier this year. "NOAA: US sees record number of billion-dollar weather, climate disasters in 2023," observed Fox Weather. "U.S. Hit by Record Number of High-Cost Disasters in 2023," declared The New York Times.
These and many more headlines were based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) January press release reporting the agency's annual tally of weather disasters. It states:
The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) has released the final update to its 2023 Billion-dollar disaster report, confirming a historic year in the number of costly disasters and extremes throughout much of the country. There were 28 weather and climate disasters in 2023, surpassing the previous record of 22 in 2020, tallying a price tag of at least $92.9 billion.

In a new article in the journal npj Natural Hazards, University of Colorado Boulder political scientist and climate policy expert Roger Pielke Jr. challenges the scientific integrity of these annual NOAA climate and weather disaster reports.
"The point here is not to call into question the reality or importance of human-caused climate change—it is real, and it is important," explains Pielke. "Rather, the question is whether the NOAA billion dollar disaster time series provides evidence of detection or attribution of changes in the climate of extreme weather events in the United States, as frequently claimed."
For example, citing the NOAA dataset, the Fifth National Climate Assessment (2023) declares that "the number and cost of weather-related disasters have increased dramatically over the past four decades, in part due to the increasing frequency and severity of extreme events," adding that "there is increasing confidence that changes in some extreme events are driven by human-caused climate change." Relying on NOAA data, the White House issued a statement in 2023 on behalf of President Joe Biden that asserted "climate change related extreme weather events still pose a rapidly intensifying threat—one that costs the U.S. at least $150 billion each year."
While the NOAA notes that "the increase in population and material wealth over the last several decades are an important cause for the rising costs," the agency also claims that "it's likely that human-caused climate change is having an influence on the rising costs of billion-dollar disasters." It is this latter assertion that Pielke's analysis challenges. Specifically, Pielke argues that "NOAA incorrectly claims that for some types of extreme weather, the dataset demonstrates detection and attribution of changes on climate timescales. Similarly flawed are NOAA's claims that increasing annual counts of billion dollar disasters are in part a consequence of human caused climate change."
Just how the NOAA calculates the number and costs of each disaster is methodologically opaque. The agency says that the costs of the disasters it includes are inflation-adjusted over time. However, Pielke identifies numerous examples in the NOAA's tally in which the costs of specific disasters have been unaccountably boosted well above inflation adjustments. For instance, Pielke compares the National Hurricane Center's (NHC) losses for several major hurricanes with the NOAA's billion-dollar disaster (BBD) losses for each of those hurricanes.

In these examples, the NOAA has significantly boosted the calculated hurricane losses well above the inflation-adjusted figures. Why? The NOAA says that "one of the key transformations" in its calculations "is scaling up insured loss data to account for uninsured and underinsured losses, which differs by peril, geography, and asset class." However, as Pielke points out, "NOAA makes no details available on the methodology or basis for such transformations, nor their impact on loss estimates, nor how these transformations may change over time." Consequently, this fails the requirement for data transparency that would enable outside analysts to evaluate the sufficiency and accuracy of the calculations.
Pielke points out that the NOAA does acknowledge that disaster losses are rising in part due to increasing wealth that puts more assets at risk as they build up along vulnerable coastlines and wildland-urban interfaces. However, the agency does not adjust its calculations for such changes in asset exposure or vulnerability. Pielke argues that a better way to track how extreme weather events are affecting the U.S. economy is to calculate such losses as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) over time. Such a calculation finds that weather and climate disaster losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP show no increase between 1990 and 2019.

"The most appropriate data for investigating detection and attribution of changes in climate variables will always be climate data, and not economic data," concludes Pielke. "Any claim that the NOAA billion dollar disaster dataset indicates worsening weather or worsening disasters is incomplete at best and misleading at worst."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Needs more testing?
Needs more testing!
It’s evidence of sprawl…the best land was obviously built on first. And in 1900 two of the highest population regions, South Florida and Southern California (and Vegas), were believed to be uninhabitable year round.
The Gulf Coast was significantly less populated as well.
You misspelled The Jones Act.
Spain ruled Florida for over 300 years. They considered it so worthless that they only established two settlements: Saint Augustine, and Pensacola. Both in the north.
The problem with Southern California is the lack of water. The Los Angeles Aqueduct fixed that problem. The backstory of the movie, "Chinatown" is the corruption associated with the building of the Aqueduct. the corruption was actually far worse than the movie presents.
The locations of Sacramento and Tallahassee (and Carson City) show that they couldn’t even fathom people living in South Florida and Southern California. Texas is a relatively new state but even Austin ended up being central relative to population. Same with Oregon and Washington…Spokane isn’t the most populous city in Washington like LA and Miami and Vegas.
"So worthless" ? In the closing years of the American Revolution , Great Britain rejected your view of Florida by dispatching a Royal Navy fleet carrying regiments of Hessian troops from New York and Halifax to seize Pensacola.
We just spent a weekend with hyper-green friends touring around southwest Colorado, and visiting multiple sites with remnants of native habitations between 600 and 1300 AD. Along with northwest New Mexico, this was the center of Ancestral Pueblo cultures that included hundreds of thousands of people, and maybe more. And then they all moved away.
While they certainly faced pressure from "invaders", including people from more aggressive tribes, the data support significant climate change and prolonged drought. Our friends were fine, if not happy with this, since it offers lessons for modern worry-worts. But they did not want to talk about reasons for climate change 1000 years ago.
Yeah - I was looking at a thing recently where a guy was arguing that Climate Change caused the Syrian Civil War and someone in the comments chimed in to the effect of "yeah! Climate Change does that kind of thing! Just look at what happened in Cambodia in the middle ages!"
Who knew medieval Cambodians were using so many fossil fuels?
" Just look at what happened in Cambodia in the middle ages!”
I believe the decline of Angkor Wat, the famous temple complex and ruin, was due to plumbing failures - drains getting silted up, flooding and droughts.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/water-system-helped-angkor-rise-may-have-also-brought-its-fall
"Climate Change caused the Syrian Civil War "
There's a stronger case for the events at Tahrir Square, Cairo where drought and dramatic increases in grain prices eroded legitimacy of the dictatorship.
Terrible that North Africa is suddenly drought-prone.
I was happy to see that regime fall. I watched as the Egyptian police and military supported the protestors. At least long enough to get rid of the old dictator.
Then as now, Egypt's main grain source was Ukraine .
The events in Tahrir Square, however, were explicitly weather, not climate. Long-term (even merely intermediate-term), there have been no statistically-significant changes.
" Long-term (even merely intermediate-term), there have been no statistically-significant changes."
Egypt has seen politically significant changes. Massive demonstrations, overthrow of a dictatorship, a Muslim Brotherhood government, another overthrow, more atrocities against the people, and it doesn't look like it's about to stop. These are all short-term consequences of drought and increased food prices, much as it was in Syria.
These are all short-term consequences of drought and increased food prices, much as it was in Syria.
Correct. Which does not represent any change from the "normal" climate of the area.
"Which does not represent any change from the “normal” climate of the area."
For you, obviously not, but for millions of hungry Egyptians it was enough of a change to get them to risk their lives, take to the streets and oppose a well entrenched dictatorship.
For you, obviously not, but for millions of hungry Egyptians it was enough of a change to get them to risk their lives, take to the streets and oppose a well entrenched dictatorship.
No, it actually didn't impact me at all in any way.
The conversation we're having right now, though, is whether or not these conflicts were caused by Climate Change, which so far you agree is a resounding "no."
"which so far you agree is a resounding “no."
I wouldn't call it resounding. The idea that climate can change without affecting our weather or agriculture seems the hallmark of hidebound conservatism rather than any sober reflection on the workings of mother nature.
The idea that climate can change without affecting our weather or agriculture seems the hallmark of hidebound conservatism rather than any sober reflection on the workings of mother nature.
Which doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand since, as Rossami pointed out, the occasional severe drought does not actually represent any deviation from the "normal" climate of the region.
If thinking weather doesn't change with climate is a hallmark of hidebound conservatism, what is insisting that every change in the weather is Climate Change?
" what is insisting that every change in the weather is Climate Change?"
That is silly. I already pointed out the decline of Angkor Wat was related to problems in their plumbing system. I even linked to a very scientific paper on the subject. I beg you to read it. Nobody here is insisting that climate change is responsible for the problems of the Angkor civilization.
"the occasional severe drought does not actually represent any deviation from the “normal” climate of the region"
It wasn't strictly a regional problem. Grain prices were higher around the world. Had Egypt experienced a normal drought while the rest of the world enjoyed plentiful rainfall, Mubarak might still be in power today, if he wasn't dead, that is.
"what is insisting that every change in the weather is Climate Change?"
It's probably more accurate to say that climate affects weather than climate doesn't affect weather. Wouldn't you agree? I don't think you'll find anyone who insists that every change in weather is Climate Change, so you can put that one to rest.
I already pointed out the decline of Angkor Wat was related to problems in their plumbing system
"drains getting silted up, flooding and droughts"
So those floods and droughts weren't Climate Change?
It wasn’t strictly a regional problem.
Then why did it only strike Egypt?
It’s probably more accurate to say that climate affects weather than climate doesn’t affect weather. Wouldn’t you agree?
No. I would suggest that they’re not even two different things, and as such there is no causal relationship to be found between the one and the other.
I don’t think you’ll find anyone who insists that every change in weather is Climate Change
And yet here you are.
"So those floods and droughts weren’t Climate Change?"
I don't know. Is anyone claiming they were?
"Then why did it only strike Egypt?"
Only Egypt? Who said only Egypt was affected? Check out what happened in Tunisia.
"I would suggest that they’re not even two different things"
I think climate and weather are similar things. Time scale is what makes them different. Otherwise they are concerned with temperature, atmospheric pressure, precipitation, wind and such phenomena.
"And yet here you are."
I am here, happy to discuss far off places like Egypt and Tunisia with curious people like yourself.
I don’t know. Is anyone claiming they were?
Yes. The people I was talking about in the post that you responded to. Your memory can't really be that short, can it?
Only Egypt? Who said only Egypt was affected? Check out what happened in Tunisia
When did Tunisia move to a different region from Egypt?
"Yes. The people I was talking about in the post that you responded to."
I can't answer for them, whoever they are. If they start posting here, I'll be happy to read them and respond as I see fit. I can't promise any more than that.
"Your memory can’t really be that short, can it?"
It might be. I really don't know who you're talking about. I know a bit about Angkor Wat, been there and spent some time wandering about. It's a fascinating place and I'm gratified to share my love of the place with you and all my readers. I've never heard anyone link the decline of Angkor Wat with climate change until you brought it up. As far as I know, it was problems with their drainage system, though if you have alternative explanations, I'd be happy to read them.
"When did Tunisia move to a different region from Egypt?"
Not sure what you're driving at. Why not check a map if you're interested in the location of the two places. It was a little confusing to me. I always thought the international 'zone' of Tangier that once attracted the likes of William Burroughs, Joe Orton, Kenneth Williams, and the Rolling Stones to live or vacation there was in Tunis, but it's actually in Morocco, same region, if you'll pardon the expression, but a whole other country.
"Nobody here is insisting that climate change is responsible for the problems of the Angkor civilization."
Khmer rice crops depended on reliable rains, and it is archaeologically uncontroversial that dynasties fell and Angkor was partially abandoned in the centuries after Jayavarman VII, despite waterworks extending all the way up to Kbael Strean and the Kulen Mountains, because the monsoonal climate grew chaotic and starvation ensued.
Climate us what you expect. Weather is what you get.
Must have been buffalo farts.
Was watching NatGeo the other day about Maya cities collapsing due to 80 year drought, circa 850 or so. And also how pre-classical Maya deforested huge swaths of Guatemala.
"The lowlands of Mexico and Guatemala experienced widespread deforestation by the Maya beginning about 4,000 years ago. The region has never fully recovered. Ancient Maya environmental impact provides a case study for the long-term effects of deforestation, and according to a new Nature Geoscience study published today, the implications for current tropical deforestation are far-reaching.
The lowlands of the Yucatan Peninsula were occupied and heavily used by the Maya at the height of their civilization. Contrary to popular belief, “the Maya did not live in complete harmony with the environment, and there is ample pollen evidence throughout the region for severe deforestation over a protracted period of about 2,000 years,” says study co-author Mark Brenner, Professor of Geological Sciences and Director of the Land Use and Environmental Change Institute (LUECI) at the University of Florida.
That reminded me of some of the things I read 'back in the day' when Russia, I think it was, "helped" build the Aswan High Dam on the Nile River.
As the Reason videos put it, "What could go wrong???"
So, you build a dam on generally porous soil/sand.
You pile up water behind the dam, drastically increasing the static head (pressure of the water on the land under it.
And, as happens with all dammed rivers, what was a narrow waterway spreads out to cover an immensely larger area upstream of the dam... increasing the area of water for Evaporation in a hot, dry climate.
And then you wonder why the predicted supplies of water and electricity don't meet forecasts after that.
Silly humans.
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
I just can't believe that Climate Doomers would make up data to fake a study to gin up support for their suicide cult. Again.
"Pielke argues that a better way to track how extreme weather events are affecting the U.S. economy is to calculate such losses as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) over time."
What such losses? As I understand, spending on disaster relief adds to the GDP.
Aggregate weather losses (as measured by insurance payouts) is measured in billions. The US GDP is measured in tens of trillions. While there is arguably some skewing if you include the repairs in the total GDP count, at those ratios, the mathematical difference is miniscule.
" the mathematical difference is miniscule"
It's a good way to minimize the consequences of climate change in other words. Hence the article in Reason.
It’s a good way to
minimize thepoint out the minimal-and-yet-politically-amplified consequences of climate change in other words.FTFY
The removal of the dictatorship was a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that authoritarians might mourn to loss of Mubarak, a stalwart toady to decades of US presidents, but this is one politically amplified consequence I can get behind. I'm sure more political consequences are on the way, and some won't be so nice.
this is one politically amplified consequence I can get behind
How so? Above you agreed that this particular political consequence is not one of Climate Change.
And when I used the phrase "politically amplified consequences" I meant "consequences being exaggerated for political purposes." You know - as discussed in the article and like you're doing here in this thread. But I suspect you knew that already.
"How so?"
I'm happy to see a dictator overthrown.
"Above you agreed that this particular political consequence is not one of Climate Change."
I was pointing out that spending money to repair damages caused by hurricanes increases GDP. If you disagree, you need to make the case.
"when I used the phrase “politically amplified consequences”"
I'm just responding to what you wrote. If you meant something other than that, it's your problem, not mine. But thanks for your efforts to make yourself clearly understood. Too many here have succumbed to the echo chamber and assume that everyone is of a single mind, and clear, precise explanations are unnecessary.
“consequences being exaggerated for political purposes.”
You've already made it clear that civil war or mass uprisings are of little interest to you, so any talk of them will naturally strike you as exaggerated. i don't think we say the same thing about those directly affected. Some lost their lives and I think it's fair to say that nobody was unaffected by the events.
I’m happy to see a dictator overthrown.
Me too!
What I'm wondering is why you keep insisting it has anything to do with Climate Change when you've already admitted it doesn't.
"why you keep insisting it has anything to do with Climate Change when you’ve already admitted it doesn’t."
I'm not sure what you mean. I was pointing out that repairing homes wrecked by catastrophe adds to the GDP. Here's my original comment:
"What such losses? As I understand, spending on disaster relief adds to the GDP."
As to whether or not any particular event is caused by climate change, I couldn't say. It does seem plausible that changes in climate will also affect weather and agriculture, though. Is that what's bugging you?
mtrueman 3 hours ago
” Long-term (even merely intermediate-term), there have been no statistically-significant changes.”
Egypt has seen politically significant changes. Massive demonstrations, overthrow of a dictatorship, a Muslim Brotherhood government, another overthrow, more atrocities against the people, and it doesn’t look like it’s about to stop. These are all short-term consequences of drought and increased food prices, much as it was in Syria.
Not really. The economy would be in better shape if the government didn’t insure people living right by questionable sections of the ocean, people didn’t then live there, their homes weren’t damaged by hurricanes, and the like, and then rebuilt at essentially federal expense. It’s like pretending that digging holes, then filling them up, increases GDP, because money was spent. In the hurricane instance, no more housing stock has been built, even though money has been spent.
"even though money has been spent."
Isn't spending money increasing the GDP? As I understand, if something breaks and money is spent fixing it, the GDP increases.
No. GDP measures wealth, and not spending. Yes, it might look that way. But obsolescence is a cost, and minimizing it increases, not decreases national wealth. Think of another example. Say you buy 10 cheap shirts. They fall apart after the first washing and have to be thrown away and replaced. Contrast this to one that costs twice as much but lasts for better than 10 washings. After the 10 washings, you still have the expensive shirt, but not any of the cheap ones, and only spent 1/5 as much. That shirt counts as part of national wealth, because it is still hanging in your closet. The 10 cheap ones, that you threw away, don’t, because they are in a landfill.
"GDP measures wealth, and not spending."
Replacing a wreck of a home with a newer, more resilient one is also an increase in wealth, isn't it?
^ This is what intentionally misunderstanding something looks like.
My understanding is that replacing a wrecked home with a newer one adds to the GDP.
But replacing a perfectly fine home with something just the same doesn't, which was Bruce Hayden's point that you were intentionally missing.
I wouldn't call homes destroyed by catastrophe 'perfectly fine.' I believe replacing a home wrecked by a hurricane with a new one increases GDP. If you disagree, make your case.
Does your wealth increase after you break all the windows in your house?
The GDP increases when you spend money to replace the broken windows with new ones.
"What such losses? As I understand, spending on disaster relief adds to the GDP."
Then it shouldn't.
Which economist was it who wrote about the village where someone got the bright idea of breaking windows in homes and businesses because it would 'increase the wealth of the glassmakers'?
Apparently forgetting that the insurance costs to the owners of the previously-intact windows would increase, thus lowering their wealth, plus taking their money for replacing the glass away from any other wealth-increasing things they might have wanted to do, like hiring more employees or adding on to their homes...
Hm?
If 'rebuilding after a disaster "increases the GDP," someone is a fool for not Subtracting the Real Loss of Wealth due to the damage, from the alleged 'increase' in wealth from the rebuilding!
That's because he's just here to say retarded things in order to derail actual discussion.
re: “GDP measures wealth, and not spending.”
No, it really doesn’t. Wealth is assets less liabilities. GDP doesn’t even attempt to measure either of those. It is strictly a spending measure.
I think the confusion comes because at the population level, spending by one person is income to another.
So, yes, buying 10 shirts that fall apart increases GDP more than buying one that lasts forever. GDP is a measure of economic activity, not of static wealth. GDP is a useful measure but only if you use if correctly.
(Which, yes, means that GDP is skewed upward by broken window fallacy events.)
You misunderstood.
It's the broken windows fallacy writ large.
"Can you imagine living in a property that has flooded 10 times? How about 20 times? It’s hard to fathom enduring that kind of situation, yet owners of 2,109 properties across the United States experience just that. Not only has each of these properties flooded more than 10 times, but the National Flood Insurance Program has paid to rebuild them after each flood. One home in Batchelor, Louisiana flooded 40 times and received a total of $428,379 in flood insurance payments.
"Through a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who oversees the NFIP, we received records on the 30,000 most frequently flooded properties in the program, called Severe Repetitive Loss Properties. The data reveal important new information about the flood history of these properties and show that in many, if not most of these cases, it would be cheaper to buy these properties than pay to rebuild them over and over again. At the bottom of this page are some facts about the most frequently flooded properties in the National Flood Insurance Program.
According to statistics compiled by Pew, these so-called "repetitive loss properties" account for just 1 percent of NFIP policies but 25-30 percent of payouts.
-------------
Sometimes the answer *has* to be people lose their homes and society has to say "That's too bad, sorry." Maybe help them move somewhere else, but we 100% cannot support rebuilding your house in the floodplain/wildfire zone/volcano hillside...
Will we really succeed in building 20 foot seawall around NYC or Miami or NOLA? When will we just say: "Folks, in 20 years this is all going to be underwater. Enjoy it while it lasts, but you should really consider moving, because we can't afford to save all your houses and businesses."
From a Libertarian POV, it might already be past the time when government should cut the cords that keep people living in areas that are projected to be hit hardest by climate change. That action would be to simply say: you can buy that piece of property, and even build on it. But no one will be willing to insure it, and we will not have laws that force them too; nor will government at any level cover any loses on that property. And for the people who already built there and live there, well, maybe they chose poorly and why is it my problem? I was smart enough to NOT build my house in a floodplain or in a city that is 10 feet below current sea level and expected to be 20 feet below in 50 years.
There were 28 weather and climate disasters in 2023, surpassing the previous record of 22 in 2020, tallying a price tag of at least $92.9 billion.
President Joe Biden...asserted "climate change related extreme weather events still pose a rapidly intensifying threat—one that costs the U.S. at least $150 billion each year."
So...a lie? Are any of the "independent" fact checkers on this?
A heretic from Boulder. Damn, Boulder is like the Paris Commune for wealthy leftists, grievance and climate activists.
Very true. It doesn’t help that it has so many climate related federal agencies there (NOAA, NCAR, NREL, and even NIST). Daughter got her PhD there is a related field, and it permeates so much of the environment there. Got into a discussion once about CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas, and in response to my question about feedback, she told me was in an atmospheric chemistry class at the time, and her prof said I was wrong. Talk about arguing from authority. Had a cousin who spent his career at NOAA there, and was on a first name basis with all of the ClimateGate perps. He would stay with one of them whenever he was in England, and attended all the big Climate confabs.
"The point here is not to call into question the reality or importance of human-caused climate change—it is real, and it is important," explains Pielke.
You see, they had to begin this way to assure you they are not actually guilty of apostasy. They still believe, they just have some questions about the dogma...I mean data!
When people feel obligated to begin any thesis this way, you know they are afraid.
"Of course I acknowledge the necessity of the Pope's lavish lifestyle in order to allow his divine work to be unimpeded by earthly concerns, I just wonder about the example shown by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament."
- William of Ockham, shortly before excommunication
It's just pathetic that you see people affirm their support for the overall orthodoxy while questioning the bits and pieces of haphazard non-science that support it.
They are so close to seeing the house of cards for what it is, but shy away from any conclusions they should be able to draw from that.
I did have to laugh at the phrasing of the quote above. It's 'real and important' because it's 'real and important'. That sounds suspiciously like circular reasoning born of two conflicting 'facts' in the authors brain. They are on the precipice of truth but just can't take that last step.
The most pathetic part is how scientists have already said the quiet part out loud that they are intentionally misrepresenting facts about climate change and man kinds role in it purely to raise awareness and collect fat grant money. They can say that out loud and no one bats an eye out of pure unadulterated fear.
That is power that the Catholic church wishes it still had in the modern era.
"Real" and "Important" are the two pillars of the faith. "Real" by itself is insufficient.
That is power that the Catholic church wishes it still had in the modern era.
Indeed. Instead the poor thing is struggling to keep up with gender ideology.
If a man's livelihood depends on his not understanding a fact, he's not going to.
Climate scientist: Yes, I cooked my Nature article on global warming -- and here's why – HotAir
I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published | The Free Press (thefp.com)
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/09/05/climate-scientist-yes-i-cooked-my-nature-article-on-global-warming-and-heres-why-n575844
I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way ...
The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.
This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.
To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all...Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
Had to bow the knee to "it's real and it's real bad!" first. Or else he wouldn't have gotten published at all.
Oh look, the weather people discovered inflation. What will they discover next, the wheel?
Adjusting for CPI is nonsense, because that number is already rigged to exclude housing.
The folks in Florida facing double digit increases in their property insurance premiums -- assuming they can get insurance at all -- might question the entire premise of this article. And California isn't much better off.
If insurance was too expensive, nobody would live there, and we wouldn’t have these problems.
"nobody would live there"
It'll make a perfect home for all the Haitian refugees that are on their way over. A good combination, people rich enough to afford insurance and install submarine style doors on their homes, and others who have no insurance and very little of anything else.
Well let's also not forget that weather disaster spending rarely has anything to do with remedying the effects of weather disasters.
I have to wonder how much of a factor politics plays here in just the number of declared natural disasters. If you don't include a bunch of tornadoes and hurricanes one year but then include every thunderstorm the next you're going to see a spike in payments for new roofs suddenly added to the ledger even without any change in frequency or intensity. I want to know about the instances that were declared and how much was spent on each. As I recall, there haven't really been any huge disasters in the last few years (at least based upon the public mobilization of resources.) It all has the air of accounting gimmicks and defining things to achieve a predetermined result. The cost of claimed property damage is not remotely an accurate measure of weather intensity due to all of the other variables
^ Exactly this. In CA it’s become custom for governors to declare emergencies at every opportunity because it opens up their ability to award no-bid contracts and to apply to the Federal Government for “relief” funds.
Recent example being the greatly overhyped “storms and flooding” that were this year's “disaster” claimed by Newsom.
This makes it trivially simple to point to a rise in declared disasters in recent decades and a massive spike in spending related to them.
EVERYTHING is evidence of climate change. Didn’t you get that memo. When it’s cold it’s global cooling. When it’s hot it’s global warming. When your weather predictions become so absurd you worry about it's legitimacy then it’s just ‘changing’ (alarm for the sake of being alarmed) and of course the science says that 'warming' is actually 'cooling' and the 'cooling' is actually 'warming'.
There is absolutely no escaping by any route the 'climate emergency' for it is an emergency entirely for the sake of being alarmed.
The ‘stupid’ tends to follow the power-madness of governments throughout history. The 100M excuses made by those obsessed with poking ‘guns’ (gov-guns) at those ‘icky’ people; steal them blind and enslave them.
Silly rabbit.
They are, however, evidence of runaway inflation.