Munich Re says their data is reliable starting in the 1990s, which is why I use 1990. There is incomplete data from several sources before then, but it is not appropriate for this type f analysis.
Dr. Pielke ==> Thanks for this update. despite the fact that I often disagree with you, you are one of my heroes -- fr persevering in the face of rabid political attacks and abandonment by those who should have supported you.
Dear Roger, I recently wrote an op-ed piece for the Tulsa World citing the AR6 WG1 Ch. 12 Table 12.12 data you pointed us to regarding floods, tornadoes, hail and such. I added some wildfire data, Ryan Maue's hurricane data and some E-Mat data on global deaths from disasters. Next week the paper published a data free letter to the editor accusing me of being a crackpot who got my data from Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. It is remarkable how resistant a significant portion of the population is to the good news about climate change, that the pace and risk are much lower than many media sources insist. Such people seem to need a dystopian prophesy of impending doom to satisfy some dark corner of their psyche. Sadly, such people are passing on their pathology to many teenagers, who sincerely believe they will not have a chance to grow old before dying from catastrophic climate change. It is the job of us grown-ups to soothe the fears of the anxious young, not feed them with unrealistic scare stories.
Coincidentally (I think) Brad Delong was also looking back at this period in his Substack and just went after you (among many others) again..."I last encountered the work of Roger Pielke (Jr.) in 2014, and I was really not impressed at all —he lacked knowledge of the generating processes underlying or of the shape of the data he was using, and had no control over his models....To my knowledge, neither Matt Ridley, nor Steve Dubner, nor Steve Levitt, nor Roger Pielke, Sr., not Roger Pielke, Jr., nor Chris Horner, nor Anthony Watts, nor any of the others who did a great deal of data misrepresentation in their day has given all they have to the poor and taken up a life of anonymous service to others." He also linked to his attempted debunking of your 538 piece in 2014 where he argues that you misrepresent the data in claiming that natural disaster costs have been driven by economic growth rather than disaster frequency (here -- https://web.archive.org/web/20140402164614/http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/03/28/2417/the-launch-of-fivethirtyeight-com-and-climate-change-disaster-weblogging-trying-to-be-the-honest-broker-for-the-week-of-march-29-2014).
"To my knowledge, neither Matt Ridley, nor Steve Dubner, nor Steve Levitt, nor Roger Pielke, Sr., not Roger Pielke, Jr., nor Chris Horner, nor Anthony Watts, nor any of the others who did a great deal of data misrepresentation in their day has given all they have to the poor and taken up a life of anonymous service to others."
????? What does this even mean? Has Brad DeLong given all that he has to the poor, and taken up a life of anonymous service to others? What does that even have to do with evaluating trends in the costs of natural disasters?
A couple things:
1) I read Brad DeLong's blog fairly regularly before he permanently banned me from commenting. It may have been someone else's blog that I've been banned from ;-), but as I recall, he had one post where he explained that he was happy to pay more taxes. He and his wife had an income of over $300,000 per year. To me, that was surprisingly high. (This was probably more than 15 years ago.)
2) The comment that got me permanently banned was that he made some bold claim about climate change, and I asked him what the source of his claim was. Seriously. After that *question* about what was *the source of a claim he'd made*, my comments were never allowed on his blog again. (I gave up after maybe five tries spanning a couple months.) Now, I admit I'd had other comments that were frankly critical of things he'd written, particularly regarding things related to climate change. But to literally be banned for a short question very close to, "What is your source for that?" was astounding. Straw that broke the camel's back, I guess. (But a pretty wussy camel, if you ask me. ;-))
I looked into the background of billionaire Tom Steyer a few years ago. He is a real piece of work. He bought up 1000s of acres in California and was hawking organic beef and probably still is, regardless of the supposed methane impact on climate. Another rich hypocrite, like John Kerry. At least it is his own money.
Often it is the endurance of a dark passage that helps us better appreciate the better times that follow. There is always a silver-lining, we just have to open our minds to it.
What I find interesting is that when it comes to climate issues the politicians and experts want us to focus on the anecdotal tragedies and ignore the underlying data. That allows them to accumulate more power and money.
When it comes to crime we should stop focusing on the anecdotal tragedies and look at the underlying data. That allows them to avoid accountability.
Thank you for being steadfast and standing up for reality despite the ordeal that the dogmatists and climate cuckoos have put you through. It’s why I subscribe to, and enjoy, your Substack. I just wish there was some mechanism for repercussions to the likes of Mann, Podesta, Steyer, and the countless others of their ilk, beyond the general mistrust of institutions and the so-called “elites” running them. The damage these imbeciles inflict upon science is real and hurts us all.
Yes, they can do major devious actions like that to others without any repercussions but if someone even so much as critiques their claims its $1M damages awarded. A weaponized legal system is part & parcel of Fascism.
quick question Roger. The country where i live is increasingly doing so called "cloud seeding" and storms / rainy days have increased in number and intensity. As we are in the desert it would seem all good. Not really because buildings, cars, properties get damaged due to quality of construction and other issues. all these translates into insurance claims that i imagine are attributed to extreme weather and climate change (of course). but in this case the anthropogenic effect is very clear and certainly has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
Hi Roger,
Did Munich Re start with 1990? And if they did, is there someone who did analyses that goes back to the 1980s and 1970s that could be added?
Munich Re says their data is reliable starting in the 1990s, which is why I use 1990. There is incomplete data from several sources before then, but it is not appropriate for this type f analysis.
Dr. Pielke ==> Thanks for this update. despite the fact that I often disagree with you, you are one of my heroes -- fr persevering in the face of rabid political attacks and abandonment by those who should have supported you.
You do good work.
Dear Roger, I recently wrote an op-ed piece for the Tulsa World citing the AR6 WG1 Ch. 12 Table 12.12 data you pointed us to regarding floods, tornadoes, hail and such. I added some wildfire data, Ryan Maue's hurricane data and some E-Mat data on global deaths from disasters. Next week the paper published a data free letter to the editor accusing me of being a crackpot who got my data from Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. It is remarkable how resistant a significant portion of the population is to the good news about climate change, that the pace and risk are much lower than many media sources insist. Such people seem to need a dystopian prophesy of impending doom to satisfy some dark corner of their psyche. Sadly, such people are passing on their pathology to many teenagers, who sincerely believe they will not have a chance to grow old before dying from catastrophic climate change. It is the job of us grown-ups to soothe the fears of the anxious young, not feed them with unrealistic scare stories.
You are describing mental illness. No need to sugar coat it.
Brilliant work as always Roger :)
Coincidentally (I think) Brad Delong was also looking back at this period in his Substack and just went after you (among many others) again..."I last encountered the work of Roger Pielke (Jr.) in 2014, and I was really not impressed at all —he lacked knowledge of the generating processes underlying or of the shape of the data he was using, and had no control over his models....To my knowledge, neither Matt Ridley, nor Steve Dubner, nor Steve Levitt, nor Roger Pielke, Sr., not Roger Pielke, Jr., nor Chris Horner, nor Anthony Watts, nor any of the others who did a great deal of data misrepresentation in their day has given all they have to the poor and taken up a life of anonymous service to others." He also linked to his attempted debunking of your 538 piece in 2014 where he argues that you misrepresent the data in claiming that natural disaster costs have been driven by economic growth rather than disaster frequency (here -- https://web.archive.org/web/20140402164614/http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/03/28/2417/the-launch-of-fivethirtyeight-com-and-climate-change-disaster-weblogging-trying-to-be-the-honest-broker-for-the-week-of-march-29-2014).
"To my knowledge, neither Matt Ridley, nor Steve Dubner, nor Steve Levitt, nor Roger Pielke, Sr., not Roger Pielke, Jr., nor Chris Horner, nor Anthony Watts, nor any of the others who did a great deal of data misrepresentation in their day has given all they have to the poor and taken up a life of anonymous service to others."
????? What does this even mean? Has Brad DeLong given all that he has to the poor, and taken up a life of anonymous service to others? What does that even have to do with evaluating trends in the costs of natural disasters?
A couple things:
1) I read Brad DeLong's blog fairly regularly before he permanently banned me from commenting. It may have been someone else's blog that I've been banned from ;-), but as I recall, he had one post where he explained that he was happy to pay more taxes. He and his wife had an income of over $300,000 per year. To me, that was surprisingly high. (This was probably more than 15 years ago.)
2) The comment that got me permanently banned was that he made some bold claim about climate change, and I asked him what the source of his claim was. Seriously. After that *question* about what was *the source of a claim he'd made*, my comments were never allowed on his blog again. (I gave up after maybe five tries spanning a couple months.) Now, I admit I'd had other comments that were frankly critical of things he'd written, particularly regarding things related to climate change. But to literally be banned for a short question very close to, "What is your source for that?" was astounding. Straw that broke the camel's back, I guess. (But a pretty wussy camel, if you ask me. ;-))
I looked into the background of billionaire Tom Steyer a few years ago. He is a real piece of work. He bought up 1000s of acres in California and was hawking organic beef and probably still is, regardless of the supposed methane impact on climate. Another rich hypocrite, like John Kerry. At least it is his own money.
Often it is the endurance of a dark passage that helps us better appreciate the better times that follow. There is always a silver-lining, we just have to open our minds to it.
What I find interesting is that when it comes to climate issues the politicians and experts want us to focus on the anecdotal tragedies and ignore the underlying data. That allows them to accumulate more power and money.
When it comes to crime we should stop focusing on the anecdotal tragedies and look at the underlying data. That allows them to avoid accountability.
Thank you for being steadfast and standing up for reality despite the ordeal that the dogmatists and climate cuckoos have put you through. It’s why I subscribe to, and enjoy, your Substack. I just wish there was some mechanism for repercussions to the likes of Mann, Podesta, Steyer, and the countless others of their ilk, beyond the general mistrust of institutions and the so-called “elites” running them. The damage these imbeciles inflict upon science is real and hurts us all.
Yes, they can do major devious actions like that to others without any repercussions but if someone even so much as critiques their claims its $1M damages awarded. A weaponized legal system is part & parcel of Fascism.
quick question Roger. The country where i live is increasingly doing so called "cloud seeding" and storms / rainy days have increased in number and intensity. As we are in the desert it would seem all good. Not really because buildings, cars, properties get damaged due to quality of construction and other issues. all these translates into insurance claims that i imagine are attributed to extreme weather and climate change (of course). but in this case the anthropogenic effect is very clear and certainly has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.