You are absolutely right. They never mention in the articles that death rates are declining or that intensity is not increasing or frequency. The articles I’ve seen around this subject ALWAYS forget to mention the alternative less alarmist information.If they base the article on 3C temperature change by 2100 they never mention that is the high end and very unlikely to be achieved.
If they mention that sea levels could rise 3 feet by 2050 they don’t mention it’s gone up 8" in the last 100 years by estimates using mass analysis and 4" by tidal gauges. They never mention that even the IPCC admits there is no evidence of acceleration in sea level rise.
If they talk about Islands being drowned they never mention that half of islands are increasing in size.
We are spending a lot of money on natural disaster mitigation regardless of global warming or not. Whether storms increase or not in 2100 we will have drastically improved our mitigation and I believe we will find the costs will decline but this is all a function of our choices nothing to do with global warming. Technologies and improvements in infrastructure, medical care and mitigation of natural disasters will occur no matter what happens even if we could somehow prevent any temperature increase.
Many of the damages that do occur and loss of life occurs in third world countries. As they deploy modern building standards and have gotten wealthier they will deploy better response systems as we have in the first world.
Our building codes and other things improves daily. In the early 80s we had big storms in california that wiped out lots of houses. We had big rains this year and many of those wipeouts and land destabilizations didn’t happen. Since 1980 we have improved our water drainage systems, retaining walls. We are more aware and fix things so we don’t repeat mistakes.
In 80 years by 2100 it’s hard to imagine how much better our natural disaster resistance will be. The rate of technological progress is exponential. In order to justify the kinds of political intervention they are suggesting they need more than it will cost a little more to clean up after storms in 2100 so we need to all change now!
They need lives to be impacted like the islands flooded out, the cities under water. They need epidemics or food catastrophe’s. What I continually point out is even if you accepted their impossible scenarios for warming none of these negatives is proven either. In fact the negatives they claim are on much less steady ground than the temperature projections.
The studies of these “negative consequences” is not funded at nearly the level of the models. The science in them is very problematic. They insufficiently consider mitigations that may be obvious or other things that may happen naturally.
In 1998 they had a heat wave in France that killed 15,000 people. 3 years later a hotter heat wave passed through. 10 people died. In 3 years they had achieved > 99% mitigation of loss of life. How? Telling people to drink water, get some fans, go down the street to an air conditioned building. It cost nothing to attain 99% mitigation.
I have read articles that claim it will be 175 degrees F in the Middle East. I have read articles that claim 3 feet or 6 feet water rise between now and 2100. These articles all appeared in MSM but all of these claims are incredibly out of whack with any actual science.
If you read any of these “claims of negative consequences” studies you will find they all assume 3C or more temperature change by 2100. There is no way to get that even if you believe their flawed studies. They fail on multiple levels. The models are wrong. Even if you accept the models the temperatures can’t rise that much because the assumptions of CO2 production and sensitivity are too high. If you take those the studies are still flawed.
If you know anything about the claimed process of CO2 heating it heats the coldest areas the most and the hottest areas the least. How the Middle East gets to 175 with an average 0.5C increase by 2100 is ridiculous. What 0.5C means is maybe 0.25C at the tropics and 1–2C maybe at the North Pole. So far the South Pole is cooling not warming contrary to model predictions.
Over and over what we see is deception. They don’t tell the whole story. It’s obvious they are trying to alarm. It is just like the bias in the media to Trump. When 12 out of 12 articles every day for 2 years is critical you can pretty much say it is biased news. The problem with biased news is they never tell you the whole story. Thus the polls had problems they never mentioned that. They never validated that middle America was suffering. NOT including information is as bad as lying about some information. They do both. They incorrectly report information and they exclude information that negates or is more important than what they tell you.
When you see this you see a massive effort to deceive people. An incredibly massive consistent effort to ignore and discredit the actual facts and to only give credence to the most alarmist articles no matter how ridiculous. They never report that the articles are proven wrong. They never publish articles telling how the models have failed. They never publish articles on what they didn’t know that isn’t settled.
There is a filter bubble and you and others ought to consider if you really want to live in a filter bubble or would prefer to know the truth.