As the whole climate hysteria continues to unravel, more good news on the climate front....

According to preliminary data, the world death rate from natural disasters in 2025 was the lowest ever recorded at 0.8 deaths per 100,000 people. And the trend continues...

in 1960 it was >320 per 1,000,000;

in 1970, >80;

in 1980, ~3;

in 1990, ~1.3

The climate hysterics are constantly talking about climate tipping points which will create more hurricanes, floods, droughts etc. But Mother Earth has her own agenda.

Speaking of agendas, a paper from 2024 was released with great hoopla showing that the economic impact of climate change by 2050 would be enormous. It was peer-reviewed and all, so it must be true. Well Nature has just withdrawn the paper because of flaws in their data. Of course, as usual with these things, the original (erroneous) paper got massive coverage. The retraction?...not so much.

And as the hysteria dies down, scientists are feeling more comfortable about publishing heretical data. For example, it now seems that the oceans are cooler now than at any time in the past 4.5 million years and have been on a cooling trend for all that time.

Similarly scientists are now saying they're now see any climate tipping points on the horizon.

The COP30 meeting was a disaster.

Tracking the unravelling of the whole scare will be fascinating.

Talking about the weather and all that hysteria -
Unfortunately I can’t remember where so I can't reference it (it was probably in one of those woke, left wing, Marxist, pinkie, commie rags that Emperor Trump is either suing for billions, or threatening to sue) where in a travel writer reported the fact that an increasing number of the big international travel companies have had to adjust their departure dates and tour itineraries. It seems tourists are becoming wary of going to popular tourist spots during what have been traditional ‘peak season’ due to the high chance that their holiday will be spoiled or severely compromised by adverse weather events. And, no, they don’t want to travel simply because it’s too crowded, it’s because there is a high chance of copping crap weather. It would appear that the tourists with the $$$’s have spoken with their wallets and the tour companies have listened.
Lucky we know it’s all a big con, and neither the tourists nor the travel companies have a clue.

Ah, so this is where that post was supposed to appear, mhaze!

Here's the response I prepared earlier:

//According to preliminary data, the world death rate from natural disasters in 2025 was the lowest ever recorded…//

Long-run declines in disaster mortality overwhelmingly reflect improved forecasting, infrastructure, emergency response, and wealth. They are not a proxy for hazard intensity or future risk. This distinction has been standard in the literature for decades.

//The climate hysterics are constantly talking about climate tipping points…//

Tipping-point discussions concern physical system thresholds, not short-term disaster death rates. Declining mortality does not speak to the existence or absence of such thresholds.

//A paper from 2024 was released… Nature has just withdrawn the paper…//

Retractions are a normal part of scientific self-correction. A single withdrawn paper does not invalidate a field supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. Treating retraction as narrative collapse misunderstands how science works.

//It now seems that the oceans are cooler now than at any time in the past 4.5 million years…//

Claims about deep-time trends over millions of years do not meaningfully address rapid forcing on century timescales. It is a category error to conflate paleoclimate baselines with modern anthropogenic change.

//Scientists are now saying they're not seeing any climate tipping points on the horizon.//

Vague appeals to what "scientists are saying" aren’t evidence. If there’s a substantive shift, it needs to be specified, cited, and shown to overturn existing constraints and attribution studies.

(Sorry, it was a bit anticlimactic the second time around.)

JD,

None of the things I mentioned were a slam dunk against the climate hysteria. As I said, they are just signposts on the road to the final unravelling of the great scare campaign.

In the past, papers like the one in Nature that was so relied upon by the climate community would have been fiercely defended and anyone even questioning it would have been labelled a denier and excommunicated from the climate change family. That it was so relatively easily overturned shows that the power of those threats of career-ending attacks is declining.

The same with the paper on sea temperatures. A few years back such a paper would have been unheard of and whoever had the temerity to write it would have had to wave good-bye to a career in climate. Now....

(BTW the real takeaway from that paper isn't the actual change in sea temperatures. Its the evidence that things like coral evolved in much warmer waters than today even though we are constantly told they are threatened by warmer waters.)

More and more scientists are coming out against the hysteria. Some western governments as well.

Notice what's happened here, mhaze?

You're no longer defending the substantive claims themselves, but a narrative about how the scientific community supposedly behaves.

Papers being criticised, corrected, or even withdrawn is not evidence of a field "unravelling". It's evidence of normal scientific self-correction. If those processes weren't happening, that would be the real red flag.

Pointing to individual papers that survive scrutiny or fail it does not establish a trend unless you can show that the underlying physical constraints and attribution evidence are being overturned. You haven't done that.

As for corals, their deep-time evolutionary history under different boundary conditions tells us very little about the resilience of modern reef systems facing rapid warming, acidification, and multiple compounding stressors on century timescales. Rate and context matter.

At this point, "more scientists are coming out against hysteria" is a sociological claim, not a scientific one. If there's a substantive shift in the evidence base, it needs to be specified and shown to revise existing constraints, not inferred from anecdotes about publishing culture.

So far, what you've presented are isolated signposts interpreted through a prior conclusion, not evidence of the conclusion itself.

Standard JD here.... completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what is said and then, when its pointed out that he completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what is said, claim that I'm backtracking.

Same old. Same old.

BTW I used to think it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the point, but I'm increasingly coming to the view that comprehension skills might be an issue.

"As for corals.... Rate and context matter."

Yes its always been thus in the climate hysteria. First claim that the temperatures or the sea level rises or the CO2 or whatever else is declared to be the doom-merchant du jour, are at unprecedented levels. Then when its proven that they are at very usual levels and indeed sometimes, as with ocean temperatures, at close to unprecedented lows, immediately pivot to claims that the RATE of change is unprecedented. No evidence mind you, but when has evidence been a necessary component of the scare?