Why don't we see this being reported by the BBC or mainstream papers? Or maybe the less naïve question is how do we get this sort of data into the mainstream media?
Dr. Pielke ==> You have used the EM-DAT data correctly. Data before 2000 in their database represents only the improvement in their data collection system and is not valid for comparison with post-2000 data. At least two major UN reports have knowingly misrepresented disaster by comparing decadal data before 2000 (1970s or 1980s) with decades after 2000, like 2010s.
EM ==> You seem to have misunderstood my comment -- I said "You have used the EM-DAT data correctly". Dr. Pielke uses the valid data -- the UN UNDRR and WMO (as mentioned by Ludwik Budyn below) compare pre-2000 decades wit post-2000 decades.
Ludwik ==> It is even more FAKE than that -- the EM-DAT database manager herself, Regine Below, has confirmed to me personally by email that all data BEFORE 1998-1999 represents only an "increase in reporting" and not an increase in disasters. Email me at my first name at the domain i4.net and I will send you a copy of the original emails.
This explanation of the improvement in the collection of information (= increase in the number of reporting countries) which explains the "increase" in the number of disasters is found in several CRED reports, I quote them in my two articles. The "scientists" of the UNDRR and the WMO chose to ignore it, quite simply, because it did not allow them to produce an alarmist message.
Ludwik ==> Yes, it is even worse than even that -- UNDRR report is co-authored by CRED/EM-DAT and the WMO report was reviewed by CRED/EM-DAT -- and gives false comparisons despite their direct involvement.
"the number of global weather and climate disasters declined..." Shouldn't this be phrased "the *economic costs* of global weather and climate disasters decline"? That's the way the referenced 2018 article states it. Do the declining economic costs say anything about the frequency and intensity of such disasters or simply indicate that human populations are better prepared for such disasters?
Roger references the EM-DAT in Belgium as his source for the graph of the week. It is in number, not economic cost. So why frame it in cost when the reference is in number?
That said, I could not find a reference on the EM-DAT to the global numbers shown in the graph of the week. Roger?
Thank you Ludwik, that was an interesting read. It is sad that they have changed their policy, when I accessed the EM-DAT website I found their graphics very disappointing and rather meaningless.
Making the charts meaningless was, I believe, the main goal of their policy change. Because the old graphs obviously contradicted the two reports, from UNDRR and WMO, in which CRED participated. The first report spoke of a doubling of natural disasters and the second of a quintupling ! The graphs show a decrease...
You're right about the graph reference. I was referring to his third link, the article "Tracking progress on the economic costs of disasters..."
Looking at the EM-DAT website, it's hard to see how some of their "Disasters of the Week" can be directly tied to climate change, but maybe that's not the intent. "Bush fires in Australia"? That might just have been caused by a careless smoker.
That is true, a lot of the natural disasters are hard - if not impossible - to tie to climate change. Still, one of the points I see some people try to make is that the overall number is going down but the climate related is nevertheless going up. And that EM-DATs graph somehow hides this.
Me, I think that if the total number of disasters are going down it does not matter much that any arbitrary proportion of it is rising. But we are living in the age of percentages (the percentocene?) where everything is presented as a proportion and not as hard numbers.
Agreed, I wish this framing (popular with Shellenberger, too) was a little more transparent. I understand what is being said but I think this gets people like them into trouble. I don’t mind that data is being used to show we have a drastic reduction in deaths or economic losses, but I think you don’t do yourself any favors when you aren’t explicit about your framing and why you think it’s worth expressing that way. People are liable to think you are genuinely trying to tell them that all climate-related disasters are declining by intensity.
You make several good points. Critics of Roger will quickly point out the limitations of this piece of data and accuse him, not without justification, of "cherry-picking" and thereby undermine his broader arguments. He could have used this data on the reduction of economic losses due to weather and climate disasters in the context of the reality that dealing with climate change is a long-term undertaking. The fact that we have been able to reduce the losses due to these disasters, particularly if their intensity is getting worse, should give reassurance to those who feel we must rush in to solutions which might not effectively deal with the problems caused by climate change.
Yes, that's exactly the way I would have Roger and others who come under a lot of (often unwarranted and ideological) scrutiny explain why they say what they say. I recognize there is a bit of "throat-clearing" before you get to the data and what it means, but it's the difference between being a nuanced thinker in public—who shows he understands the trade-offs of what the data shows—and being someone who just wants to present "net-positives" no matter what the totality of the data show. In Roger's defence, he has had to put up with a lot of unfair treatment which started with an outright lie and went downhill from there, so his capacity for constant throat-clearing may be tapped out. But I think this is an absolutely vital skill for anyone who wants to present counter-narrative analysis.
Weather disaster, yes there are those. But there is no such thing as a climate disaster.
Why don't we see this being reported by the BBC or mainstream papers? Or maybe the less naïve question is how do we get this sort of data into the mainstream media?
Dr. Pielke ==> You have used the EM-DAT data correctly. Data before 2000 in their database represents only the improvement in their data collection system and is not valid for comparison with post-2000 data. At least two major UN reports have knowingly misrepresented disaster by comparing decadal data before 2000 (1970s or 1980s) with decades after 2000, like 2010s.
Please explain. The posting is showing a graph starting from 2000.
EM ==> You seem to have misunderstood my comment -- I said "You have used the EM-DAT data correctly". Dr. Pielke uses the valid data -- the UN UNDRR and WMO (as mentioned by Ludwik Budyn below) compare pre-2000 decades wit post-2000 decades.
Ahh! I read it as “incorrectly”. Careless reading comprehension fail on my part.
I analysed the inconsistencies in these two reports (UNDRR and WMO) by comparing them to the EM-DAT data : https://ludwik-budyn.medium.com/fake-news-at-the-un-2bbbad36ed49 and https://ludwik-budyn.medium.com/fake-news-at-the-un-2-4ed02107d05f
Ludwik ==> It is even more FAKE than that -- the EM-DAT database manager herself, Regine Below, has confirmed to me personally by email that all data BEFORE 1998-1999 represents only an "increase in reporting" and not an increase in disasters. Email me at my first name at the domain i4.net and I will send you a copy of the original emails.
This explanation of the improvement in the collection of information (= increase in the number of reporting countries) which explains the "increase" in the number of disasters is found in several CRED reports, I quote them in my two articles. The "scientists" of the UNDRR and the WMO chose to ignore it, quite simply, because it did not allow them to produce an alarmist message.
Ludwik ==> Yes, it is even worse than even that -- UNDRR report is co-authored by CRED/EM-DAT and the WMO report was reviewed by CRED/EM-DAT -- and gives false comparisons despite their direct involvement.
And CRED also tries to make it more difficult to access an easy representation of its data, as I show here : https://ludwik-budyn.medium.com/the-cred-credo-or-how-to-bury-information-986cab90843
Glad to see someone using data to respond to the conventional story told by much of the mainstream media.
"the number of global weather and climate disasters declined..." Shouldn't this be phrased "the *economic costs* of global weather and climate disasters decline"? That's the way the referenced 2018 article states it. Do the declining economic costs say anything about the frequency and intensity of such disasters or simply indicate that human populations are better prepared for such disasters?
Roger references the EM-DAT in Belgium as his source for the graph of the week. It is in number, not economic cost. So why frame it in cost when the reference is in number?
That said, I could not find a reference on the EM-DAT to the global numbers shown in the graph of the week. Roger?
Until 2020 it was possible to see the number of disasters on the EM-DAT site directly, but this possibility has been removed.
Now you have to download the raw data and do the work yourself as I explain here : https://ludwik-budyn.medium.com/the-cred-credo-or-how-to-bury-information-986cab90843
Thank you Ludwik, that was an interesting read. It is sad that they have changed their policy, when I accessed the EM-DAT website I found their graphics very disappointing and rather meaningless.
Making the charts meaningless was, I believe, the main goal of their policy change. Because the old graphs obviously contradicted the two reports, from UNDRR and WMO, in which CRED participated. The first report spoke of a doubling of natural disasters and the second of a quintupling ! The graphs show a decrease...
You're right about the graph reference. I was referring to his third link, the article "Tracking progress on the economic costs of disasters..."
Looking at the EM-DAT website, it's hard to see how some of their "Disasters of the Week" can be directly tied to climate change, but maybe that's not the intent. "Bush fires in Australia"? That might just have been caused by a careless smoker.
That is true, a lot of the natural disasters are hard - if not impossible - to tie to climate change. Still, one of the points I see some people try to make is that the overall number is going down but the climate related is nevertheless going up. And that EM-DATs graph somehow hides this.
Me, I think that if the total number of disasters are going down it does not matter much that any arbitrary proportion of it is rising. But we are living in the age of percentages (the percentocene?) where everything is presented as a proportion and not as hard numbers.
Agreed, I wish this framing (popular with Shellenberger, too) was a little more transparent. I understand what is being said but I think this gets people like them into trouble. I don’t mind that data is being used to show we have a drastic reduction in deaths or economic losses, but I think you don’t do yourself any favors when you aren’t explicit about your framing and why you think it’s worth expressing that way. People are liable to think you are genuinely trying to tell them that all climate-related disasters are declining by intensity.
You make several good points. Critics of Roger will quickly point out the limitations of this piece of data and accuse him, not without justification, of "cherry-picking" and thereby undermine his broader arguments. He could have used this data on the reduction of economic losses due to weather and climate disasters in the context of the reality that dealing with climate change is a long-term undertaking. The fact that we have been able to reduce the losses due to these disasters, particularly if their intensity is getting worse, should give reassurance to those who feel we must rush in to solutions which might not effectively deal with the problems caused by climate change.
Yes, that's exactly the way I would have Roger and others who come under a lot of (often unwarranted and ideological) scrutiny explain why they say what they say. I recognize there is a bit of "throat-clearing" before you get to the data and what it means, but it's the difference between being a nuanced thinker in public—who shows he understands the trade-offs of what the data shows—and being someone who just wants to present "net-positives" no matter what the totality of the data show. In Roger's defence, he has had to put up with a lot of unfair treatment which started with an outright lie and went downhill from there, so his capacity for constant throat-clearing may be tapped out. But I think this is an absolutely vital skill for anyone who wants to present counter-narrative analysis.