Of course, I find them inadmissible. You should too. Storms and such will continue to happen even if they are growing less frequent rather than more frequent. Evidence distinguishes between theories. The above information doesn't do that.

OTOH, "comparisons made by scientists" is so profound nebulous and unscientific a term, that it doesn't even qualify as information. I can find "comparisons made by scientists" to "prove" a huge variety of conspiracy theories or pseudoscience theories. That's in fact a standard tool of the trade to add a veneer of authority to all sorts of crazy assertions.

Even if we supposed that all it took to "starve" someone out of a public debate was to spend enough money, the Koch brothers aren't even remotely close to spending the kind of money that would take. They're just relatively wealthy billionaires, not god-emperors with an iron-bound oil monopoly to fund their every whim.

I think a silly aspect of this discussion is the attribution of so much mythical power to money. It misses an obvious problem. If you spend money to steer the discussion and your wealth decreases as a result, then you've lost money and hence, lost that power. There are other forms of power that don't diminish in their use, such as military power or political power.

We and in particular you don't actually know such a thing. There has to be evidence of this first before there can be knowledge.

I was merely responding to that. What is "global scale" referring to then? Also, since I'm at it, I don't see any evidence of any increase in catastrophes. To the contrary, I see evidence of substantial declines in catastrophes and body counts when those catastrophes occur. A modern emergency/disaster response works wonders in reducing the occurrence and severity of catastrophes.

But that was never in good shape. You aren't going to pack thousands of people per square km in the countryside.

Do you actually have an example of a global catastrophe? Zero is not an increase over zero.

Completely irrelevant here since both the damage was insignificant on a global scale and quickly repaired (extremely rapid adaptation on a time scale faster than climate change operates on). I'm worried about things that quickly kill 300 million people. Nuclear war can do that. Sea level rise can't.

There are two things to note here. First, not every such building will come with a precrashed plane parked in it, flaming jet fuel splashed all over the place. Or have fire insulation on their steel girders scraped off. The heat input and initial damage will be different. Second, they aren't all designed like the WTC towers were. That generally is a bad thing since the WTC towers were relatively well designed.

Wood is actually rather resilient though I am surprised to see it used on such a scale and in such a climate. I'd be worried that termites could be the big hidden killer when the Big One comes. Of course, there probably isn't much that's going to help in the really large earthquakes (like a magnitude 9 one), after the tsunami and lahars sweep through.

The real threat seems to be large nuclear war or some similar military-grade existential threat (weaponized diseases, for example). As long as we don't try to kill each other with such weapons, then it seems to me that the climate related stuff isn't that serious a danger. In other words, if the environmental impact is bad enough that it triggers a large scale nuclear war, then yes, it's really bad else it's just another thing we can adapt to.

And if the models are right, that's just fine. Reality, however, doesn't have this tendency to assume that the models are right.

Like an ozone hole that we already know is present? Or radiative models that turn out to be incorrect.