Truth To Power wrote:
No, you are again just factually incorrect.
I provided evidence, you provided BS.
You were trying to use a simple deduction to make reality go away.
Back in the real world, you need facts. All you have is childish denials and a crude parody of science.
That is a professional insurance analysis. You would need an actual analysis that shows *specifically* where it's inaccurate.
"The study was prepared in order to support underwriters and clients in North America, the world’s largest insurance and reinsurance market. Using its NatCatSERVICE – with more than 30,000 records the most comprehensive loss data base for natural catastrophes – Munich Re analyzes the frequency and loss trends of different perils from an insurance perspective...
The study shows a nearly quintupled number of weatherrelated loss events in North America for the past three decades..
Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity. The view that weather extremes are becoming more frequent and intense in various regions due to global warming is in keeping with current scientific findings..
"In all likelihood, we have to regard this finding as an initial climatechange footprint in our US loss data from the last four decades. Previously, there had not been such a strong chain of evidence. If the first effects of climate change are already perceptible, all alerts and measures against it have become even more pressing.”https://www.munichre.com/us-non-life/en/company/media-relations/press-release-archive/2012/2012-10-17-severe-weather.html
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire