I may get banned for this but...
How ignorant can you be? Measuring hurricane severity by CASUALTIES? Are you NUTS?
You know why there aren't many casualties in hurricanes these days? SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY - METEOROLOGY - STORM TRACKING.
We know DAYS in advance when a storm is going to hit and get the warning out to people. We fly airplanes INTO these storms to get precise measurements. What airplane could do that in 1926? NONE - that's what!
Dear lord - the people here should be old enough to remember when we did NOT have these tools! They only started coming into play in the 1960s and 70s!
Yeah, the "top three" were in the early part of the 20th century - when the population was a LOT less, there was almost NO mass media (certainly not compared to today - only a couple of 'worst' storms would even have RADIO).
We're documenting the warning of the oceans. We're getting historical climate information from everything from tree rings to ice cores. We've documented the warming properties of carbon. The oil companies have been CAUGHT in misinformation campaigns to protect their profits.
Look, I don't blame some people for not knowing the difference between "weather" and "climate". It's hard, for example, to be up here in New England and hear about global warming during a blizzard. And that's why it's "climate change" now. As science learns more, the definitions get refined. Yes, "on average" the temperatures are going up - but in some places that means more severe WINTER storms. We know this because of observations and models.
I used to be a skeptic, like many here. We'd learned, back in grade school, that it was VOLCANOES that put the carbon in the atmosphere that changed the climate - over millenia. Now? Humans are putting OVER SIXTY TIMES the amount of carbon into the atmosphere that volcanoes do, year over year. Still think we can't affect the climate? When we're 60x worse than the worst "natural" cause - that's the number that made me change my mind.
And that's what science is. When you find data that doesn't match up with what you thought was the answer, you do more testing. And that's how we've refined the models over time.
Science wasn't wrong. Science was being science. It's like looking into the sky and seeing something and thinking it's a star. Then you get a telescope and you see it's not a star but something spiral shaped. You get better optics and you start seeing that 'thing' is made up of many points of light - like stars are here. And you realize there are things called "galaxies". The word didn't exist not too long ago. But it doesn't mean that Galileo was wrong. It means that we didn't have enough knowledge. Now, because of our technology, we're seeing more galaxies further out in the cosmos than we ever imagined - in numbers that we can't wrap our heads around. We pointed the Hubble at some "empty space" and found THOUSANDS of galaxies. That's how science evolves.
We knew about the properties of carbon in the 1800s:
Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote
It was even in a New Zealand newspaper in August of 1912:
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ne...9120814.2.56.5
The data is OVERWHELMING. Ask yourself who stands to profit from the denial. You think there's a "Big Science" out there making a profit off of the 'alarmism'? Who was the last billionaire scientists you met? Take a good look at the balance sheet of fossil fuel companies.