Contrarians’ favorite extreme event. See #ButExtremeEvents for other.
Objections and Replies
1900. Studies cherrypick data from 1950 (or 1980), they do not pick 1900—
☞ You got to work with the data you got: sometimes it’s too heterogeneous to study it without (say) homogeneization.
Inconvenient. Jim’s prediction that NYC subways will be permanently—
☞ Sea levels (note the s) are related to but are not exactly hurricanes, and scientists were kinda OK with how Al represented the science behind hurricanes.
Junior. I’ll stick with Junior and his normalization of—
☞ And I’ll stick with my second favorite life-long Republican who found problems with Junior’s work.
Moneymaker. AGW fear is a big moneymaker for the insurance ind—
☞ Insurers and reinsurers fear only one thing. You know what? No, not online contrarians like you. Losing money. So they started to notice that AGW sucks.
Star. Weren’t hurricanes the star “catastrophe” of our “existential threat”?—
☞ No. You’re confusing with the favorite contrarian claptrap. Try again.
Uptrend. No uptrend in losses since 1990—
☞ You’re citing a whitepaper with the following lede: Losses from flood have been on an upward trend globally. They also say
2020-10; Methodological issues in natural disaster loss normalisation studies; https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744