More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

And in case you wondered why the world is warming up.


30 days before the olympic games.

Except you don't seem to understand that the world actually hasn't been warming up. The change in total ocean accumulated energy has been falling since the Olympics - and the AGW high priests (so called scientists) are explaining that it is the smog you posted pictures of which is causing this.




Heavy forbid that you actually consider facts...

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

I must have missed that part. This is what I remembered:

> Global rice production fell by 2% in 2009/2010 from a record crop the year before.
> global stocks-to-use ratio is tighter at 26.5% which is near the average this past decade and well below the 22.3% low in 2007/08
> Krugman is right about crop failures due to extreme droughts in Russia and the Ukraine this past year. These areas experienced a 30% reduction in their wheat crops. There were also reduced wheat plantings this past year due to the oversupply the year before. Global wheat production fell 5% from 2009.
> Weather always causes fluctuations in agricultural production. We do not know if we are in the middle of another food crisis. We can't yet conclude with certainty how climate change is affecting agricultural production.

I also recall seeing a brief assertion made that these small decreases in supply can't explain the large increases in price. As I also recall, Krugman explained this through the inelasticity of demand in regards to food. I.e., it has to increase in price a lot before people decide to go without. But whatever.

Given that the entire article is intended to be a refutation of Krugman's article, I'm confused as to why you cannot understand the title statement of this thread:

So thanks Paul for explaining it to us, but please allow me to point out a few flaws in your analysis.

But then again, you are a Krugman apologist, so perhaps it is understandable.

[lektrode]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Except for one tiny problem: extreme events are actually NOT increasing in frequency nor in strength.

What has been increasing is the number of people living in flood plains (Queensland/Brisbane), on coastlines (Katrina/New Orleans), etc etc.

As posted to 'Climate Change' - Hurricane frequency and total energy: no trend whatsoever

have anything that overlays those 2 charts (global_running_ace.jpg) with the el nino/la nina cycles?

[we_are_toast]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

As the denialists deny, you and your children will pay the price.

In today's world, Pseudoscience trumps reason, blogo-nonsense trumps hard data, and if you go too far, you'll fall of the end of the earth. And we wonder why the Oligarchs can so easily manipulate the masses.

Extreme Weather: Why Has Mother Nature Gone Bonkers?
By Jeremy A. Kaplan
Published January 06, 2010
| FOXNews.com

Mother Nature is in a very, very bad mood.
Much of the Northern Hemisphere is in the grip of arctic air and record snowfalls that have been inflicting hardship and havoc from China to Russia to Western Europe and over to the American Plains.
Meanwhile, the Southern Hemisphere has been experiencing a warmer than average summer.
Planetwide, the weather has become remarkably unpredictable.
There are few precedents for the global sweep of extreme cold and ice that has killed dozens in India, paralyzed life in Beijing and threatened the Florida orange crop. Chicagoans are taking shelter from a potentially deadly freeze, Paris is enduring sunny Siberian cold and Poland has counted at least 13 deaths in record low temperatures of about 13 degrees below zero. A string of deadly avalanches in northern Italy's Alps led to seven deaths.

In northeastern Asia, they are suffering the worst winter weather in six decades. More than 10 inches of snow cover Seoul, the South Korean capital -- the heaviest snowfall since records began in 1937.
But life in the warmer parts of the planet is equally off-kilter. 2009 was the hottest year in history in most parts of South Asia and Central Africa. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported in September that the world's ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, according to a preliminary analysis based on records dating back to 1880.
The United Nations' weather agency, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), reported on the second day of last month's Copenhagen climate conference that the last decade was on track to become the warmest since records began in 1850. 2009 could rank among the top-five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency said.
Some aspects of the wacky weather have been particularly unexpected. According to reports, non-native iguanas that have been plaguing Florida are being killed by the unusual cold in the Sunshine State. One resident told the Florida Sun Sentinel, "Fingers crossed that this cold snap will kill them. I don't have the heart to beat one to death. I hope the weather does it for me." The weather is also threatening Florida's citrus crop, which is critical to the state's economy.
Overall, this fall and winter are shaping up to be off-average worldwide. According to the NOAA, from Dec. 13 to 19, below-average temperatures were observed throughout Canada, Europe, western Russia, and eastern Asia -- although above-average temperatures were observed in Africa.
From Dec. 27 to Jan. 2, below-average temperatures were observed over the eastern U.S., central Russia, and northeast Asia -- and above-average temperatures were observed over northeast Canada, northern Africa, and southern Europe.
Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked these conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming. "In the context of global warming, extreme atmospheric flows are causing extreme climate incidents to appear more frequently, such as the summer's rainstorms and last year's ice storm disaster in southern China," he told Beijing News.
Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center was more cautious, arguing that's it's too soon to draw any conclusions about global warming -- or global cooling -- from the rash of frigid weather.
"This is essentially a series of weather events happening simultaneously well below the climate scale," he argued. "This is an entirely different event in terms of the time scales we talk about for global warming."
Arndt said the cold weather is the result of cold air spilling south from the Arctic, which helps explains why most of the extreme cold has been felt in the Northern Hemisphere.
"Looking back at the last couple months, the Southern Hemisphere, the land masses in particular, have been experiencing a very warm summer," he said.
Meteorologists have also been trying to find a pattern in the heavy rains that have hit equatorial regions and the Southern Hemisphere in the past week. At least 20 people were killed in flash floods in Kenya after torrential rains made thousands homeless.
In Australia, the authorities declared a natural disaster along the Castlereagh River as it peaked after torrential rain, forcing 1,200 residents to abandon their homes for high ground. And in Brazil, the death toll from flooding and mudslides over the past four days rose above 80.
Cold weather doesn't necessarily mean anything when considered against long-term global trends -- even sustained, worldwide cold weather and record-setting snowfalls. But it must just put a chill on the panic and hype surrounding global warming.

Overall, Arndt believes the cold weather, while potentially dangerous and hardly insignificant, isn't enough to impact the larger warming trend. "It would take much more than this to significantly impact the global trends that we've been seeing for a few decades," he said.

The London Times contributed to this report.

[Ghent12]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

As the denialists deny, you and your children will pay the price.

In today's world, Pseudoscience trumps reason, blogo-nonsense trumps hard data, and if you go too far, you'll fall of the end of the earth. And we wonder why the Oligarchs can so easily manipulate the masses.

Maybe the weather is becoming "remarkably unpredictable" because "scientists" such as Mann et al. have been sounding the alarm for so long that entities such as the UK MET literally stated said that snow (in the UK) would be a thing of the past by now.

You try predicting the weather accurately when the entire discipline of meteorology is under assault by unscientific alarmism.

[Munger]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Given that the entire article is intended to be a refutation of Krugman's article, I'm confused as to why you cannot understand the title statement of this thread

Ok. So let me get this straight.

Krugman says food prices are attributable to supply and demand, which is attributable to weather, which is attributable to global warming.

The article admits both that there are food shortages and that they are caused by weather, but says that the weather isn't necessarily due to global warming. It also makes the unsupported assertion that, despite acknowledging supply shortage, the rise in prices cannot be fully explained by the supply shortage.

I make a quick comment that the article acknowledges the food shortages, seemingly confirming Krugman's point that the prices are not due to money-printing, and that Krugman's attribution of the weather to global warming is a stretch.

You get angry. You question my reading comprehension skills. You call Krugman a shill and a moron. You assert that the article proves that food prices are due to currency conditions and political policies.

I excerpt the portions of the article asserting that food production has in fact decreased for all categories addressed, and that the political policies are food-supply related, not currency-related. I point out that, contrary to the one sentence offhandedly stating that supply is an inadequate explanation for such a price-rise, Krugman explained it through the painfully intuitive concept of demand-inelasticity for food. I move on.

Now your argument appears to be that, "The entire article is intended to be a refutation of Krugman's article."

Well, guess what? "I intended to make a cogent argument" is not a cogent argument.

But then again, you are opposed to Krugman's explanations 100% of the time, regardless of their merit, so perhaps it is understandable.

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

The article admits both that there are food shortages and that they are caused by weather, but says that the weather isn't necessarily due to global warming. It also makes the unsupported assertion that, despite acknowledging supply shortage, the rise in prices cannot be fully explained by the supply shortage.

The article explicitly notes there are no shortages due to supply - world food levels in almost all major crops are normal.

The only exception is corn, and even there the supply for food is low not due to harvests, but due to policy.

So again, just exactly which part of Krugman = wrong do you not get?

You get angry. You question my reading comprehension skills. You call Krugman a shill and a moron. You assert that the article proves that food prices are due to currency conditions and political policies.

Yes I do. The article shows quite clearly how this supposedly Nobel Prize in Economics ivory tower pundit does not in fact understand what he's saying, or more likely is promulgating an agenda.

I am in fact giving Krugman credit for being intelligent, but for not demonstrating it therefore he must be a shill.

The moron part is the (perhaps correct) assumption that most people just won't look into his crap in enough detail to call him out.

And the article notes that it isn't supply and demand in the normal 'free market' sense, the quote I put up directly from the article clearly articulates the difference.

I excerpt the portions of the article asserting that food production has in fact decreased for all categories addressed, and that the political policies are food-supply related, not currency-related. I point out that, contrary to the one sentence offhandedly stating that supply is an inadequate explanation for such a price-rise, Krugman explained it through the painfully intuitive concept of demand-inelasticity for food. I move on.

Except of course from historical notes - the slight decrease in food supply (from record levels the previous year in at least 1 case) is irrelevant.

The article also clearly notes how a drastic price shift in a previous period coincided with supply increases, so again I fail to see where your faith in Mr. Krugman comes from.

But then again, you are opposed to Krugman's explanations 100% of the time, regardless of their merit, so perhaps it is understandable.

When I note how Krugman is wrong, I clearly state why and how.

You, on the other hand, continually seek to defend him by repeating his own words.

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

As the denialists deny, you and your children will pay the price.

In today's world, Pseudoscience trumps reason, blogo-nonsense trumps hard data, and if you go too far, you'll fall of the end of the earth. And we wonder why the Oligarchs can so easily manipulate the masses.

What is so amusing, and equally sad, is that the High Apostles of AGW in fact continually state that they can in fact predict the weather in 100 years, but cannot predict the weather in any other lesser time frame including 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 year periods to date.

According to Hansen, New York City should be under 10 feet of water by now.

According to NSIDC, we should be seeing a completely ice free Arctic by now.

According to the IPCC, the Himalayan glaciers should be disappearing.

According the to British Met, winters for the last 3 years should have been warm and mild.

The list goes on and on, and in every single case these predictions have been categorically wrong, as in EPIC FAIL.

So tell me exactly where the pseudo-science lies.

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

More people chiming in on Krugman = moron:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/20...ectualism.html

Paul Krugman on January 28, 2011 in a post titled "Egypt":

I don’t know anything, have no expertise, haven’t even ever looked at the economic situation. Hence, no posting. If there comes a point when I have something to say, I will.

Ten days later:

I’ve spent a lot of the last several days reading about climate change, extreme weather events, food prices, and so on.

You know the rest.

the rest
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/20...rspective.html

Paul Krugman joins the crowd who think that they can see the signal of greenhouse emissions in noisy, short-term data on food prices, and then construct a chain of causality to the ongoing unrest in the Middle East. Such tenuous claims of attribution have about as much scientific standing as Pat Robertson saying that Hurricane Katrina was the result of the vengeful wrath of God.

Here is what Krugman writes today:

[T]he evidence does, in fact, suggest that what we’re getting now is a first taste of the disruption, economic and political, that we’ll face in a warming world. And given our failure to act on greenhouse gases, there will be much more, and much worse, to come.

The figure at the top of this post is from a paper by Daniel Sumner, of the University of California-Davis (here in PDF), in which he seeks to place the 2006-2008 increase in grain prices into historical context. Current grain prices are at a similar level to the peak in 2007. Sumner's paper also has a figure going back to the mid-1800s. Good luck disentangling a long-term climate signal in the long-term data, which shows a significant decline in grain prices, much less attributing such a signal to a particular cause. Efforts to link short-term wiggles to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions go well beyond the canons of empirical science, to use a polite euphemism from The Climate Fix.

Sumner concludes:

The percentage price increases for grains from 2006 through 2008 were among the largest in the 140-year history for which U.S. data are readily available (figure 2). That said, at the end of 2008, real prices of grain remained near those of just two decades earlier (figure 3). Government policymakers often fail to appreciate the strength of forces driving commodity prices, and policies often exacerbate market imbalances or use commodity market flux as a rationalization for income transfers to favored groups. Looking forward, relatively minor demand-side adjustments to biofuels policy may allow grain prices to moderate significantly. However, assured renewal of longterm productivity growth requires renewed commitments to investments in agriculture science.

Like Pat Roberson's attribution of Katrina to the wrath of God in punishment for our sins, Krugman's attribution of unrest in the Middle East to the wrath of Climate in punishment for our sins is in one sense just emotive commentary from an uninformed pundit. On the other hand, to the extent that Krugman's views shape policy, they are simply misguided and misleading.

Make no mistake, there are plenty of good reasons to accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy, for climate and non-climate reasons. But anyone who thinks that action on greenhouse gases provides a meaningful lever to influence food prices, much less unrest in the Middle East, has lost all perspective. We'd be just as well off praying for the forgiveness of a vengeful God.

Nice to know he admits he knows nothing, but 10 days of browsing on the internet is enough for him to make categorical pronouncements.

The 2nd: Indur Goklani

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/0...se-by-krugman/

1. Krugman in Gradual Changes and Extreme Events forgets that there is a threshold on the left hand side, below which cold kills. In fact, in the moderate to higher latitudes more people die daily during the cold months than in the rest of the year. See Winter kills: Excess Deaths in the Winter Months.
2. How does Krugman know that the distribution does not become narrower due to warming?

3. Where is the data that shows extremes have become more intense or more frequent, after one corrects for better detection, increased population, and better communications? It certainly doesn’t hold for cyclones, as Ryan Maue’s ACE graph shows. Events more extreme than any we have witnessed over the past 30 years (or whatever) have occurred before and will, no doubt, occur again, even absent any anthropogenic climate change.
4. Empirical data show that even if extremes are more frequent and intense, lives lost have declined. As noted in the A Primer on the Global Death Toll from Extreme Weather Events — Context and Long Term (1900–2008) Trends, long term (1900–2008) data show that average annual deaths and death rates from all such events declined by 93% and 98%, respectively, since cresting in the 1920s (see Figure). These declines occurred despite a vast increase in the populations at risk and more complete coverage of extreme weather events.

Source: Goklany, IM. 2009. Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 14 (4): 102-09 (2009). Available at http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf.
5. Similarly, empirical data also do not show any significant upward trend for property losses once increases in population and assets-at-risk are accounted for. See (a) Pielke, Jr’s weblog on Normalized Disaster Losses in Australia, (b) Bouwer, L.M. (2010), “Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, doi:10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1, (c) Neumayer, E., and Barthel, F. (2010), “Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters:A global analysis, ” Global Environmental Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.10.004.

Pesky things, facts.

[Munger]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Both seem to be in line with the original article: Krugman's attribution of food price-spikes to global warming is not well-supported. Which is correct.

Of course, neither the original article nor either of these actually disputes attributing the price-rise to the venerable forces of supply and demand. And, given the utter obviousness of that explanation, the naysayers are going to have to do a bit more than yell "money printing!" to convince me.

But then again, some on iTulip seem incapable of not reflexively pointing their data-less fingers at the Fed.

[we_are_toast]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

3. Where is the data that shows extremes have become more intense or more frequent, after one corrects for better detection, increased population, and better communications? It certainly doesn’t hold for cyclones, as Ryan Maue’s ACE graph shows. Events more extreme than any we have witnessed over the past 30 years (or whatever) have occurred before and will, no doubt, occur again, even absent any anthropogenic climate change.

4. Empirical data show that even if extremes are more frequent and intense, lives lost have declined. As noted in the A Primer on the Global Death Toll from Extreme Weather Events — Context and Long Term (1900–2008) Trends, long term (1900–2008) data show that average annual deaths and death rates from all such events declined by 93% and 98%, respectively, since cresting in the 1920s (see Figure). These declines occurred despite a vast increase in the populations at risk and more complete coverage of extreme weather events.



Source: Goklany, IM. 2009. Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 14 (4): 102-09 (2009). Available at http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf.

Now this is a wonderful example of just how absurdly ridiculous the denialist pseudoscience can get. 1st, let's talk about severe weather, and specifically mention cyclones, then let's talk about deaths from severe weather. Of course the implication is, if there are more extreme events, there would be more deaths. But alas, when all you have is the denialist blogosphere to support you, and all of science and all of the data is against you, then you must resort to name calling and deception.

To compare weather science from 100 years ago (basically looking out the window) to weather science today (radar, satellites, massive increase in ground stations, instant communication...) is ridiculous on it's face.

But that sure does look like a lot of deaths. What does this paper actually say about those deaths.

Deaths and death rates from droughts were responsible for the majority (58%) of all deaths due to extreme weather events from 1900–2008.

...

For floods, responsible for another 34% of aggregate deaths, deaths and death rates have declined by 98.7%–99.6% since the 1930s.

Hmmmm, So 92% of these deaths are from droughts and floods, and not cyclones or tornadoes. So what, obviously if there were more severe weather events, there would be more deaths (despite a hundred year advancement in communication, transportation...). Well, to what does the author attribute the downward trend?

What accounts for the reduction in the death toll from extreme weather events?

First, the decline in the death toll from droughts, in particular, is that global food production has never been higher than it is today (Goklany 1998, 2007). This is largely due to improved seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, and farm machinery. This entire suite of technologies also enabled the Green Revolution. But fertilizers and pesticides are manufactured from fossil fuels, and energy is necessary to run irrigation pumps and machinery.

...

The second important factor is better disaster preparedness, and more rapid response and delivery of humanitarian aid when disaster strikes. Timely preparations and response are major factors that have contributed to the reduction in death and disease that traditionally were caused by or accompanied disasters from extreme weather events (Goklany 2007b). Their success hinges on the availability of fossil fuels to move people, food, medicine and critical humanitarian supplies before and after events strike.

...

Oh my! So to try and imply that there should be a direct correlation between the number of severe weather events and the number of global deaths would be, well, kind of not true, and even somewhat deceptive. Surely the good doctor would have tried to simply look to see if there has actually been an increase in severe weather events? Oh, but he did.

And that's why it's called denialist pseudoscience.

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Now this is a wonderful example of just how absurdly ridiculous the denialist pseudoscience can get. 1st, let's talk about severe weather, and specifically mention cyclones, then let's talk about deaths from severe weather. Of course the implication is, if there are more extreme events, there would be more deaths. But alas, when all you have is the denialist blogosphere to support you, and all of science and all of the data is against you, then you must resort to name calling and deception.

To compare weather science from 100 years ago (basically looking out the window) to weather science today (radar, satellites, massive increase in ground stations, instant communication...) is ridiculous on it's face.

But that sure does look like a lot of deaths. What does this paper actually say about those deaths.

How amusing - I've clearly shown that hurricanes are neither increasing in severity or frequency.

Yet somehow you're attempting to say that they are?

Then I show that weather attributed deaths are falling - a peer reviewed paper - yet you scream that somehow this is untrue?

Well, let's examine your premise.

From wiki: deadliest typhoon/hurricanes:

1	"Haiphong"	1881	300,000
2	Nina	1975	170,000
3	July 1780 Typhoon	1780	100,000[4]
4	"Swatow"	1922	60,000[5]
4	"China"	1912	50,000[5]
5	July 27 Typhoon	1862	40,000[4]
6	September 27 Typhoon	1881	20,000[4]
7	"Hong Kong"	1937	11,000

How inconvenient. All of these are at least 30 years in the past - and some extend to the very beginning of the so-called anthropogenic global warming era.

Furthermore these numbers are even larger in comparison because populations are far larger today. The data listed by Indur Goklani is quite consistent with this - perhaps you can demonstrate how it is incorrect.

But of course heaven forbid that anyone disagree with the Church of AGW - which continually makes wrong pronouncements, but it doesn't matter because of the Doctrine of Scientific Infallibility.

Oh, that's right, there isn't such a thing.

[c1ue]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Both seem to be in line with the original article: Krugman's attribution of food price-spikes to global warming is not well-supported. Which is correct.

Of course, neither the original article nor either of these actually disputes attributing the price-rise to the venerable forces of supply and demand. And, given the utter obviousness of that explanation, the naysayers are going to have to do a bit more than yell "money printing!" to convince me.

But then again, some on iTulip seem incapable of not reflexively pointing their data-less fingers at the Fed.

Well, at least you finally admit that Krugman is totally wrong and off base in these pair of articles.

As for money printing - I doubt that even you can say that there isn't money printing going on, at the Fed as well as in other Central Banks.

It isn't the only factor, but it absolutely is a very large one - much as the completely wrong headed, Al Gore sponsored, pork barrel, CO2 spewing ethanol subsidy has an large impact on corn prices.

[Munger]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Well, at least you finally admit that Krugman is totally wrong and off base in these pair of articles.

Pretty sure if you look back you will find that I've consistently expressed skepticism towards Krugman's attribution of price-rises to global warming.

As for money printing - I doubt that even you can say that there isn't money printing going on, at the Fed as well as in other Central Banks.

Pretty sure that I have not disputed that money printing is occurring.

It isn't the only factor, but it absolutely is a very large one

And there again is the root of our disagreement. Care to support that statement? The articles certainly didn't care to, or even bother to offer anything in the way of evidence.

much as the completely wrong headed, Al Gore sponsored, pork barrel, CO2 spewing ethanol subsidy has an large impact on corn prices.

I agree the ethanol subsidy is foolish, and likely increases the price of corn. Via the well-known effect of increasing the demand.

[Ghent12]

Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Now this is a wonderful example of just how absurdly ridiculous the denialist pseudoscience can get. 1st, let's talk about severe weather, and specifically mention cyclones, then let's talk about deaths from severe weather. Of course the implication is, if there are more extreme events, there would be more deaths. But alas, when all you have is the denialist blogosphere to support you, and all of science and all of the data is against you, then you must resort to name calling and deception.

To compare weather science from 100 years ago (basically looking out the window) to weather science today (radar, satellites, massive increase in ground stations, instant communication...) is ridiculous on it's face.

But that sure does look like a lot of deaths. What does this paper actually say about those deaths.



Hmmmm, So 92% of these deaths are from droughts and floods, and not cyclones or tornadoes. So what, obviously if there were more severe weather events, there would be more deaths (despite a hundred year advancement in communication, transportation...). Well, to what does the author attribute the downward trend?



Oh my! So to try and imply that there should be a direct correlation between the number of severe weather events and the number of global deaths would be, well, kind of not true, and even somewhat deceptive. Surely the good doctor would have tried to simply look to see if there has actually been an increase in severe weather events? Oh, but he did.



And that's why it's called denialist pseudoscience.

Death rates from severe weather is definitely a bad way to judge the intensity of weather events due to numerous ameliorating factors such as early detection and communication technology. That's like rating the US Health Care system based upon the average life span number--health care is only one of numerous factors in life span.

I'd like to see your comment on hurricane intensity. It seems as if "extreme weather" is, in fact, not increasing in occurrence or intensity.