Weather Disasters Getting Deadlier, Say Experts, As Death Tolls Plummet!


By Paul Homewood

Every year official agencies like the UN and WMO tell us that weather disasters keep getting more frequent. Their evidence, they say, comes from the disaster database WM-DAT.

And every year I and others inconveniently point out that the apparent increase is not due to disasters becoming more common, but that we are now much better at recording them.

EM-DAT know this full well, because they wrote about it in their Annual Review for 2006:

Critics have hit back by noting that the number of deaths from weather disasters has massively shrunk over the years, something EM-DAT admit themselves, hardly supporting those hysterical claims of the UN.

How Dare We Criticise The Experts!

EM-DAT were not having this. So in their new review for 2022, they wrote this:

In short, they argue that if we exclude all of those mega disasters, the mortality trends have actually been increasing. Take that, you stupid deniers!

But what they fail to point out is that the number of recorded disasters has been rising exponentially since 1900, for reasons already outlined. If they worked the average number of deaths per disaster, they would see a drastic reduction.

The death toll appears to be rising for the same reason as the number of disasters does, the fact that we now religiously record them all, something we have only been doing since the 1990s. And, as their chart also shows, the death toll has been declining since then.

To be fair they do acknowledge this problem, and advise that it is “impossible to draw conclusions”:

But that does not stop them from publishing these sort of misleading charts year after year, or allowing the UN to use them to spout lies.

4.9 19 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
March 19, 2023 3:27 pm

Good report by Paul, but it won’t change the basic dynamic: for the left feelings are more important and accurate than data, and for the right data first then a little feelings. Never have I convinced a CAGW True Believer anything to do with Climate and don’t try anymore.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ron Long
March 19, 2023 4:22 pm

Prepare a one-page, double-spaced summary of Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s work that includes one of his graphs on that page. Point to the graph, explain its import and give the paper to the CAGW TB. You will have gone farther than all of the discussions and op eds in the world in doing your part. F-’em if they can’t take a joke.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 20, 2023 5:30 am

While deaths per decade have dramatically decreased, relative deaths per capita have all but vanished.
1920 had a global population of 1.9B while 2021 had 7.7B and apparently 2023 saw the population grow to over 8B.
The drop in climate deaths is even more significant given the vast increase in relative exposure from increased population

Tom Halla
March 19, 2023 3:29 pm

But noting the differences in data collection interferes with our fundraising message! Clearly, we must act now!

Curious George
March 19, 2023 4:05 pm

Climate experts as usual. I’m not sure if they are stupid or crooked.

Reply to  Curious George
March 19, 2023 4:36 pm

Why not both?

Dave Fair
March 19, 2023 4:13 pm

How do they explain the obvious (figure B) steady drop in decadal deaths from 1990 to 2020? That covers a climatologically significant 30-year period. In fact, from the period where Man’s CO2 emissions began becoming significant in 1960 there have been no increases in decadal deaths through 2020. A lack of correlation has a lot to do with rebutting causation.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 20, 2023 5:35 am

Pay no attention to that inconvenient statistic behind the curtain of insignificance. WE speak “The Truth” when we tell you it is of no concern and will only mislead you from our preferred “True Path” of Climate Confusion

John Shewchuk
March 19, 2023 4:25 pm

Concerned folks should sign up for Polar Hunts to keep bear populations under control and help protect Inuit natives …

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Shewchuk
March 19, 2023 5:00 pm

I note their brochure doesn’t includes a POV photo of a charging bear or musk ox. On my first moose hunt after moving to Alaska my buddy asked me if I had a pistol to handle close-in encounters with Brown (Grizzley) Bears that densely inhabited the area in which we would be hunting. I said; “Sure, a .357 Magnum.” He said: “OK, just be sure to file off the front sight before we go.” I responded; “What!?” He said; “Yeah, its so it doesn’t hurt as much when the bear shoves it up your ass.”

A .44 Magnum is the minimum required for Brown Bear; I now have a .454 Casull for appropriate occasions. Since I can no longer navigate rugged terrain and have no desire to rough-it and sleep on the cold ground sans my wife’s cooking, such rare occasions now would include blasting some a-hole’s engine block or blowing up his Tesla’s battery. For normal occasions my 9 mm’s and .38 Specials’ will do the trick.

John Shewchuk
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 19, 2023 5:38 pm

I’ll keep that in mind — for any hunting trips.

The Real Engineer
Reply to  John Shewchuk
March 20, 2023 1:42 am

A Desert Eagle is the best.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 21, 2023 1:39 pm

That should give the bear pause when you give it “the speech.”

“Uh-uh-uh…I know what you’re thinkin’ – Did he fire six shots or only five? To tell you the truth, I’ve forgotten myself in all this excitement. But since this is the .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you have to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?”

Last edited 2 months ago by AGW is Not Science
Dave Fair
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 22, 2023 12:08 am

When I was up too close to a Kodiak Brown Bear I couldn’t have gotten past a subaudible “Uh.”

Pat from Kerbob
March 19, 2023 4:33 pm

I have been posting Willis’s excellent where is the emergency post from 2 years ago and one clownish individual is trying to claim that since the post is two years old it’s no longer valid.

So now, any change over two years, not thirty, is now climate.

So if WE is listening, maybe time to update the post, if any new data is available. Plus comments are no longer allowed.

I’m sure you are busy buts it the single most valuable post I reference and post so any update is appreciated

March 19, 2023 5:37 pm

Anyone using or referencing the EM-Dat database MUST read:

Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 20, 2023 3:39 am

In this 2021 thread I asked you if you intended to ask Regina Below if she raised the serious data reporting problem in her capacity as reviewer of this scandalous UN report (referred to in the thread).
You replied:
“Chris ==> I intend to follow-up with EM-Dat as a result of these two UN reports.”

Were you able to follow-up with EM-DAT and, if so, what were the results?
Many thanks,

Last edited 2 months ago by cwright
March 19, 2023 6:11 pm

“Experts”. Just gets me laughing, especially when it comes to anything “climate…”. I consider them to be grifters and conmen. The data they usually offer is easily debunked and they should be dealt with like any other criminal. And made fun of when possible.

Peta of Newark
March 19, 2023 7:16 pm

And here it is, The Climate Disaster To End All Disasters

Quote:Lunch under the intricate metal trusses and glass roof of Blenheim Palace’s Orangery has, for decades, been a highlight of visiting the Baroque landmark in Oxfordshire. Yet thanks to climate change, lunch under the skies will soon be a thing of the past.

Children are not going to know what lunch is anymore

Chris Hanley
March 19, 2023 8:17 pm

But that does not stop them from publishing these sort of misleading charts year after year, or allowing the UN to use them to spout lies

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” (Mark Twain).

March 20, 2023 1:30 am

We need two categories and two sets of data as we have two types of disasters.

– “Natural” non-human induced weather related disasters & – Human co2 emission caused weather related disasters.
They will be defined as such –

If human death toll <2 = category 1
If human death toll >2 = category 2

“MEGA!” disasters are by definition all category 2.

Last edited 2 months ago by SteveG
Gunga Din
March 20, 2023 8:55 am

A question.
Figure B shows mostly increases since the 1950’s. Aside from the population increasing, so have cars on the road.
Driving on slick roads in the winter can be dangerous. How much snow does it take for an event to be considered a “disaster”?

March 20, 2023 3:23 pm

These people (UN, WMO) are worthless, the world would be better off without them.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights