The Myth of Increasing Disasters
The Myth of Increasing Disasters
Challenging the False Claims Linking Extreme Weather to CO2 Emissions
The debate surrounding the purported increase in natural disasters due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has been a cornerstone of the climate crisis narrative for decades. However, a thorough examination of the data from sources like the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) shows globally reported natural disasters from 1970 to 2024 reveal a more nuanced reality. Upon closer inspection, the claim that increasing GHGs are responsible for an uptick in natural disasters appears increasingly tenuous, if not outright false.
No Observable Increase in Natural Disasters Since 2000
The EM-DAT data, as illustrated by the figure below, shows a notable rise in the number of reported natural disasters from the 1970s to around 1999. However, after this point, the trend plateaus, with no substantial increase observed in the frequency of natural disasters up to 2024. This is critical because it contradicts the mainstream narrative that ties the rise of natural disasters directly to increasing GHG concentrations.
Since 2000, there has been a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions, driven largely by industrial growth in emerging economies like China and India. Indeed, more CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the past two decades than in any previous period in human history. According to the climate crisis narrative, this should have led to a corresponding increase in extreme weather events and natural disasters. However, the data clearly show otherwise.
Historical Context and Data Quality Pre-2000
It’s crucial to acknowledge that the apparent increase in natural disaster reports from the 1970s to 1998 is, to a large extent, a reflection of improved data collection and reporting. The EM-DAT website itself acknowledges this issue:
This admission is significant because it undermines the narrative that natural disasters were increasing at an unprecedented rate before the year 2000. The rise in reported disasters is largely attributable to better monitoring, more comprehensive data collection, and improved communication systems, rather than an actual increase in the frequency of such events.
In essence, the data before 2000 were less complete, and the increasing number of reported disasters during the latter half of the 20th century can be attributed to improvements in record-keeping rather than a surge in actual events. After the turn of the millennium, when global reporting mechanisms had matured, the number of reported disasters stabilized, further emphasizing that any previous upward trend was a function of reporting, not reality.
The Role of CO2: More GHGs, No More Disasters
The most glaring contradiction in the climate crisis narrative is the fact that, despite a significant increase in CO2 emissions since 1998, there has been no corresponding increase in natural disasters. This fact alone dismantles the argument that CO2 is the primary driver of extreme weather events and disasters.
If CO2 were the primary cause of natural disasters, as climate alarmists often claim, we would expect to see a dramatic surge in disasters over the past two decades, coinciding with the steep rise in global CO2 concentrations. However, the data do not support this hypothesis. Instead, the number of reported disasters has remained relatively stable, despite record levels of CO2 emissions. This is a crucial piece of evidence that challenges the fundamental premise of the climate crisis narrative.
What About Extreme Weather Events?
Some proponents of the climate crisis narrative argue that while the total number of disasters may not have increased, the severity of these events has worsened due to climate change. However, this claim also lacks robust empirical support. While individual extreme weather events may garner significant media attention, there is no clear, consistent trend in the data to suggest that these events are becoming more frequent or severe on a global scale.
For instance, the data on droughts, floods, wildfires, and other disaster types do not show a clear increase since 1998. If anything, the data suggest that natural variability plays a far more significant role in determining the occurrence and intensity of these events than anthropogenic factors like CO2 emissions.
Challenging the Narrative
The data from EM-DAT and other sources should force us to reconsider the prevailing climate crisis narrative. While climate change is a complex issue that warrants careful consideration, the idea that increasing GHG emissions are driving a surge in natural disasters is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the stability of disaster frequencies since 1998, despite record-breaking CO2 emissions, suggests that the relationship between climate change and natural disasters is far more tenuous than is often claimed.
Moreover, a closer look at historical disaster-related deaths reveals a significant decline in fatalities over the past century, even as the world population has surged and more CO2 has been released into the atmosphere. The included image, which illustrates global deaths from disasters over more than a century, clearly shows that annual disaster death tolls in the millions—common in the early 20th century—have given way to much lower fatalities in recent decades. This trend holds true across different types of disasters, including droughts, floods, earthquakes, and storms. For instance, the 1928 Chinese drought claimed 3 million lives, while recent disasters show far fewer fatalities. This raises serious doubts about claims that modern climate change is making disasters deadlier.
The disconnect between CO2 levels and natural disaster frequency, coupled with declining disaster-related deaths, calls into question the rationale for the massive expenditures being made in the name of preventing climate-related catastrophes. If more CO2 is not leading to more disasters, and if improvements in technology and infrastructure are reducing fatalities, then the entire justification for climate policies focused on emission reductions becomes suspect.
Conclusion: The Smoking Gun that Puts the Climate Crisis to Bed
The data speak for themselves: there has been no increase in natural disaster frequency since 1998, despite a dramatic rise in CO2 emissions. This singular fact blows a hole straight through the prevailing climate crisis narrative. If rising GHGs were truly driving a surge in natural disasters, we would have seen an explosion in catastrophic events over the last two decades, yet the data show no such trend. In fact, the stability of disaster rates in the face of unprecedented CO2 levels is the smoking gun that exposes the climate crisis for what it is, more political propaganda than grounded science.
This is not a matter of speculation; it’s empirical evidence that challenges the very foundation of current climate policies. The insistence that GHG emissions are causing more frequent and severe natural disasters is not supported by the numbers. Instead, what we’re witnessing is a deliberate skewing of the data to fit a narrative that keeps fear at the forefront and justifies massive government spending on ineffective measures.
Panic-driven policies based on unsubstantiated claims are not only wasting trillions of dollars, but they are also diverting resources from real issues that could improve human well-being and environmental health.
In short, the climate crisis narrative, particularly when it comes to natural disasters, collapses under scrutiny. The idea that CO2 is causing an uptick in extreme weather events is a myth. The data make it clear: the alarmist claims are exaggerated, the disasters haven’t increased, and we’re squandering precious resources on a fabricated crisis. It’s time we recognize this reality and shift our focus before more is wasted. The climate crisis, as sold to the public, is simply not supported by the evidence, and the sooner we acknowledge this, the better for society.
There are frequent reports from the insurance and reinsurance industry that insured natural catastrophe losses in current dollars have steadily increased over the past several decades. The naive observer takes this as clear evidence that higher CO2 levels correlate with higher insured losses. However, these data sets are not adjusted for real economic growth. When de-trended for nominal GDP growth, insured natural catastrophe losses are more or less flat for the past two decades.
Moreover, US economic growth is heavily skewed to catastrophe-prone areas (Texas, Florida) so in fact economic factors are an even more important driver of rising insured catastrophe losses.
As an aside, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018 has contributed to these trends by increasing the economic cost of being a resident in a high tax state through the elimination of the SALT deduction. This caused, at the margin, a net migration from high tax states to no-tax states, Florida and Texas being two of the largest.
Another brilliant analysis, Matthew. I don't know how you manage to stay so based - I would be enraged and it would come through the writing right out of the page. I see on Twitter how they attack you and you stay calm there too. Keep talking - we will win this eventually! :))