New UN report claims climate-related disasters have doubled

The report is incompetent and wrong on pretty much all accounts

The report should be withdrawn


Report here:…
Data here:
New UN report claims climate-related disasters doubled

Yet, even the report's own data shows the number of climate-related dead has *halved*

Report here:…
Data here:
Death data is relatively robust

Instead, almost all non-death data is much better reported towards the present. That is the main reason the UN finds an increase in numbers.

Yet, they simply wave it away

Report here:…
Not only has *actual* death data halved

Because population increased by 73% over 1980-2019, death risk has dropped by almost two-thirds

Report here:…
Known for a long time that actual death from climate-related disasters is not increasing

Death from climate-related disasters has declined 95%
Death risk from climate-related disasters has declined 99%

Leads to *very* different understanding of world…
Because climate-related deaths are down, the report instead focuses on "number of affected"

It claims number of affected are up. But so is population

Proportion is actually *down*


Report here:…
Data here:
UN claims number of climate-related incidents have increased

But this is mainly an issue of reporting: as we get closer to today, the database has many more reports of small disasters

Report here:…
Data here:
UN claims number of climate-related incidents have increased

But this is mainly an issue of reporting: as we get closer to today, the database has many more reports of small disasters

Small incidents have been increasing, large incidents have been decreasing
Easiest way to see the UN report is simply wrong is to compare their stats to actual well-documented data

We have great stats for US hurricanes, and reassuringly, UN and reality is reasonably in agreement (as expected, deaths better registered)

Comparing the UN report with actual data shows that its *numbers* of catastrophes are wildly wrong

Whereas the actual number of US landfalling hurricanes have slightly decreased, the UN show ever-increasing numbers…
Another way to see the UN report is wrong is to look at US tornados. We have good stats, but here even deaths are off for UN

It seems UN caught few deaths in the early part, only converging in last 40 years

As US population doubled over period, here is death risk — same overall point, that UN only converge towards end-of-period

(Also, one stand-out is 1963, where EM-DAT has higher deaths, from Gainsville GA — probably miscoded, should be 1936)

UN data is just terribly off on number US tornados

Reality is that strong US tornados (EF3+) have almost halved

Whereas UN data thinks it has increased 13-fold

UN# incredibly off

Real tornado numbers 100x higher than UN numbers, but that includes mostly machine-noticed EF0 tornados

Yet, even strong tornados are 10x higher, EF4+ still 2-3x higher, and EF5s 41-12, all declining

UN shows that last 20 yrs 2.2x higher than reality
The poor UN report is really just a re-run of previous climate alarmists claiming incredible disaster increases with EM-DAT, when the database shows "human impacts"

Their researcher says "you cannot claim trends in numbers"

This was the UN headline figure. All data misleading/wrong

As we have seen for number of disasters in thread above

It also shows increase in deaths, but only true for earthquakes — dishonest on climate

Fails to adjust for population and economy
When you adjust damage costs for size of economy, which even the UN Sustainable Development Goals insists you should:

The relative cost of disasters is declining, not increasing…
The UNs new report is incompetent and wrong on all major accounts

Not okay to scare people witless with bad analysis

The report should be withdrawn

Here is another good overview of some of the EM-DAT problems…
Link not working anymore, new link just as wrong...…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BjornLomborg

17 Sep
Only people born *after* 2050 will experience net benefits from climate policy

Costs come soon, benefits much later

Optimal policy still worth having, but shows why climate policy so difficult:

Convincing people to pay, *none of whom will net benefit*…
Climate policy leads to net-costs until 2080

New paper shows how climate policy costs come soon, whereas benefits mostly accrue much later

In total, the optimal policy is still worth having, but it shows why doing climate policy is so difficult…
Climate policy only becomes net-benefit after 2080, irrespective of climate costs or climate policy costs doubling or halving (if climate is worse than expected, we'll do more climate policy, hence pay more, hence break-even still in 2080)…
Read 4 tweets
10 Sep
Let's just remember the numbers — even the extreme 2020 burned area is less than *half* the *average* pre-historic burn
Yes, climate change likely plays a role: 20-25%

But "75% is the way we manage lands and develop our landscape"

Conclusion of a recent expert panel…
This is the whole point in a new Nature Sustainability paper on California's fire deficit — treat 20% of California or 20m acres of the century of fuel build-up and lack of prescribed fires… Image
Read 4 tweets
27 Aug
Interesting overview of US attitudes to climate

What I find most remarkable is the high level and constancy in replies over 20+ years

Here about 80% believe climate change is at least partly man-made (click to see fewer republicans, more democrats)… Image
Almost stable 80% of US people believe climate will be problem for US… Image
Almost stable 60+% of US people believe weather patterns more unstable last 3 years… Image
Read 4 tweets
22 Aug
Peter Birch Sørensen anmelder min bog negativt i Politiken

Han baserer sig mest på studie, der ekstremt manipulerer data

Urimeligt verden skal spilde mere end $1000 milliarder baseret på alarmistiske gæt, fjernt fra mainstream økonomi…
Jeg bruger Nobelpristageren William Nordhaus' model for optimal klimapolitik

PBS hævder, at "stigende antal klimaøkonomer" er uenige

Men dette er misvisende — jo, altid nogen uenighed blandt økonomer, men de tre store modeller giver næsten samme resultater (næste tweet) Image
Her er de tre store IAM, som også Obama brugte til at estimere klima-skader, FUND, PAGE og DICE (Nordhaus)

De har meget ens estimater

Jeg bruger den sorte linie

(Og estimaterne burde om noget være *mindre negative* fordi dynamisk mere realistisk)… Image
Read 22 tweets
9 Aug
Kære Uffe, tak for din ærligt mente bekymring. Jeg er lige igang med vores projekt for at sætte bedre prioriteringer i Ghana — håber jeg kan nå det i vores kaffepause… Image
Jeg forstår godt, at du tænker BNP er bare et abstrakt mål, men grunden til at jeg (og mange andre) bruger det, er fordi det er en af de bedste og simpleste mål for menneskelig velfærd (livslængde, skole, livstilfredshed etc)… Image
Og BNP er ikke et nul-sumspil. Over de sidste 200 år er verden gået fra at have 90%+ fattige til <10% fattige. Det er en fantastisk udvikling.

Hvis det var et nulsumspil så ville det bare være et spørgsmål om hvilke 90%, der skulle være fattige… Image
Read 6 tweets
3 Aug
Imagine study of property damage from rainstorms —

assuming no one has a roof (ht @Klynchit)

-> alarmist headlines

This study finds sea level rise affects millions, risk $trillions —

assuming we rip out all coastal defenses

-> alarmist headlines…
Central quote

Only true if "no dykes or sea walls in place"

Great for scary stories, bad for informing policy

How is it relevant for mayor of New York or Jakarta to know what happens if humanity rips out all dikes and sea walls?… (p8, supplement) Image
Many of the same researchers have already found that just the difference between *existing* and *increasing* protection as we get richer and as sea levels rise

impacts will be reduced 100-1000 times… Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!