No Jeremy Warner, Weather Disasters Are Not Getting Worse
By Paul Homewood
h/t Robin Guenier
It’s hard to keep up with this nonsense!
Whatever one’s views about the origins of climate change, we do at least know that global warming is a real and present danger. We don’t yet know that about AI.
For real-life evidence of the already highly destructive nature of climate change, you don’t need to be guided by the counterproductive bleatings of Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. Ask the insurance industry instead.
The average payout in claims over the first 10 years of the century was in the order of $50bn (£40bn) per annum. Since then, it has doubled to $100bn, and in 2022, it was an all-time record of $132bn.
Part of the explanation is inflation, together with growing instances of shoddy workmanship in construction.
But the overwhelming cause is climate change. Extreme weather events have grown steadily more frequent and destructive.
The trend is undeniable, and if maintained will soon render large parts of the world uninsurable against wildfires, floods and hurricanes, if not outright uninhabitable.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/worry-climate-change-not-artificial-intelligence/
How does the Telegraph allow him to get away with such palpable rubbish?
The reason for the increasing insured losses is population growth in vulnerable areas, such as the US Atlantic coast, and the fact that we all have more “stuff”.
Is Warner aware that weather losses have actually been falling as a percentage of GDP, which is the only reliable measure:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/dont-believe-the-hype?mc_cid=82b361cccf&mc_eid=4961da7cb1
This sort of naive reporting is to be expected from the Telegraph’s legion of young, woke journalists. If this is the best that Jeremy Warner can manage, perhaps he is better off at the Guardian.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The guardians of most of the great religions have always known there is no god(s) but they sure were not going to tell anyone. Nor are this lot.
I wouldn’t call Jeremy Warner young, he’s over 60.
Oops, just re read your comment. Apologies, you are perfectly well aware, Warner isn’t young!!
If he is over 60, he really should know better than being brainwashed by the eco-terrorists and “climate” fanatics.
>>I wouldn’t call Jeremy Warner young, he’s over 60.
Just curious. What sort of extreme weather happened in 2005?
3 Cat 5 hurricanes
Thanks. Interesting that the ENSO spent most of that year in the neutral mode (below the o.5°C threshold). first two months in El-Nino, last two months in La-Nina.
2005 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.6-0.8
Hard to blame human addition of CO2 for that situation.
Hurricanes hitting the U.S.
What an absolute load of trivial drivel from the Wokegraph. They make the grauniad look almost sensible.
10 years of inflation will count for most of the rise and, as is quite rightly said, the shoddy workmanship of current buildings. It’s the old journalist trick, if you are short of a story makes something natural seem like a major problem
Comparing a ten year nominal average with another ten year nominal average is essentially fraudulent. A quick calculation using an annual cost of 100 and annual inflation of 2.5% but no increase in real terms shows the first ten years would average 112 and the second ten years 143. Oh look, things have got worse.
I would absolutely expect losses due to non-avoidable losses such as weather to increase year on year, in real terms, let alone nominal. Ten houses totally destroyed every year by lightning would show a significant increase in loss year on year. It would be pretty surprising if it didn’t. But that doesn’t mean there’s more lightning.
Perhaps he ought to read some of Swiss RE institutes annual reports. For example in their 2021 report they said
“There has been an upturn in flood losses over the last 20 years……..THE MAIN DRIVER OF FLOOD LOSSES HAS BEEN EXPOSURE ACCUMULATION DUE TO ECONOMIC GROWTH AND URBANISATION (emphasis added)However many other factors such as ageing or lack of flood control infrastructure, ‘soil sealing’ in urban areas, more rainfall from tropical cyclones and climate change effects also impact outcomes.
Note they put climate change last in importance.
https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/sigma-2022-01.htm
. . . ‘soil sealing’ in urban areas . . .
I assume this is Swiss RE’s term for building more roads, buildings, or any ground-covering structure as part of urban expansion. This concept is the topic of a 1968 circular (#554) of the US Geological Survey:
Hydrology for Urban land Planning — A Guidebook on the Hydrologic
Effects of Urban Land Use — by Luna B. Leopold
They omit that a richer world can afford to insure more property, especially in developing areas. Since all the data indicate there has been no impact of “climate change” on severe weather, Swiss RE is lying to you when they list climate change.
No insurance payouts in, say, 13th Century – so no severe weather, then?
Jeremy Warner is the least of our problems.
Has anyone read “Global: a graphic novel adventure about hope in the face of climate change” by famous children’s writer Eoin Colfer and two of his pals?
He’s going round to schools using it as an educational aid. I think it badly needs fact-checking!
I have just looked up this book and it is scandalous what he is teaching children. They are not being allowed to enjoy a bit of nice weather the way we were able to as children.
The Telegraph has long been under the influence of Soros’s Society wreckers…
When Ayn Rand used insurance companies to Soviet Cassandras she pointed to insurance company profits, not paper money payouts. Seen any insurers folding lately?
Note also that the same sort of lies generated as pretext for banning non-addictive drugs are now coming back in the form of pretexts for banning electrical power. Mystical conservatives are not the allies we’re looking for.
Compared to this contribution- from the world of academia naturally, published in the Guardian today-“Rich countries with high greenhouse gas emissions could pay $170tn in climate reparations…” Warner’s piece is positively levelheaded.
‘Whatever one’s views about the origins of climate change, we do at least know that global warming is a real and present danger.’
[citation needed]
Petitio principii. Begging-the-question fallacy.
‘But the overwhelming cause is climate change. Extreme weather events have grown steadily more frequent and destructive.
The trend is undeniable’
False Cause Fallacy. Correlation isn’t causation.
Science note:
Even if ‘Extreme weather events have grown steadily more frequent and destructive,’ were true, it proves squat. Don’t take the bait and argue there are fewer events. It doesn’t matter; correlation isn’t causation. Fewer also proves nothing.
It’s what happens when you build more houses on flood plains, more houses by the coast and so on… if you live on a hill you should be safe.