For decades, the climate crisis narrative has rested on a single, emotionally powerful claim [some emphasis, links added]:
“As the planet warms, extreme weather will become more frequent and more intense.”
This idea didn’t emerge from nowhere.
It has been repeated, often verbatim, by governments, international institutions, scientific bodies, and major media outlets. It became the mechanism by which modest warming was transformed into an existential emergency.
Extreme weather wasn’t a side effect.
It was the proof.
Which is why the figure below matters so much.
The Dataset Climate Alarmists Used… Until It Stopped Cooperating
The chart above shows global counts of climate-related disasters, including droughts, floods, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperature events, compiled by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in Brussels.
This database is known as EM-DAT, the Emergency Events Database.
It is not obscure. EM-DAT has been used by:
- The United Nations
- The World Meteorological Organization
- NGOs and insurers
- Climate researchers and IPCC-adjacent studies
For years, the [database] was routinely cited to argue that climate change was already driving an increase in extreme weather.
Now that provisional 2025 data are available, that argument collapses.
What the Institutions Actually Claim
To understand the starkness of the disconnect, it’s essential to examine what authoritative institutions explicitly state should be happening.
The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report states:
“Any future warming will increase the occurrence of extreme weather events… The frequency and intensity of extreme events will considerably increase with warming.”
NASA echoes this message clearly:
“Record-breaking heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense.”
NOAA’s Climate.gov tells the public:
“Incidents of extreme weather are projected to increase as a result of climate change.”
And the United Nations states bluntly:
“Climate change has led to an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.”
This is not subtle language.
This is not hedged or cautious.
This is the backbone of climate crisis messaging.
Now compare those claims to the data.
What the Observational Data Show Instead
Over the last 25 years… the same 25 years in which:
- Atmospheric CO2 reached its highest levels in human history
- Global temperatures rose to claimed record highs
- Climate policies expanded dramatically
Global climate-related disaster counts have not increased. They are flat.
And in 2025, the year following the highest CO2 concentrations and some of the warmest global temperatures on record, total disaster counts are lower than at any point in the past quarter-century.
Yes, the 2025 data are provisional. EM-DAT has a modest reporting lag, particularly for events late in the calendar year. Minor upward revisions are possible.
But no realistic revision transforms 2025 into a record year for disasters. The signal is not subtle. The trend does not reverse.
If warming were driving an explosion of extreme weather, this is precisely where it should appear.
It doesn’t.
The Most Revealing Detail: Extreme Temperature Events
One detail in the 2025 data deserves special attention.
In the entire world, EM-DAT recorded only one extreme temperature disaster in 2025.
One.
This is remarkable given how often we are told that heat waves are becoming ubiquitous, unprecedented, and increasingly deadly everywhere at once.
EM-DAT does not count warm days or uncomfortable summers. It counts documented disaster events that meet thresholds for impact, displacement, or mortality.
If heat extremes were spiraling out of control, this category should be surging.
It isn’t.
Why Temperature Was Never the Real Problem
Almost no one ever argued that a slightly warmer planet than 1850 was inherently dangerous.
The mid-19th century was an exceptionally cold, unstable, and unhealthy period for humanity… marked by reduced agricultural productivity, widespread disease, and geopolitical turmoil.
Returning to 1850 temperatures would not improve human welfare.
What made warming “dangerous,” we were told, were the positive feedbacks:
- More frequent storms
- More intense floods
- Worsening droughts
- Escalating wildfires
- Expanding heat catastrophes
Extreme weather was the mechanism by which warming became a crisis.
And that mechanism is not showing up in the data.
Irrational Fear is written by climatologist Dr. Matthew Wielicki and is reader-supported. If you value what you have read here, please subscribe and support the work that goes into it.
Read rest at Irrational Fear
If you want to show on a rising trend of extreme weather events, you have to start , you have to start at a low point. Such as the 1960s.
25 years of data in the article are not enough.
A focus on daytime heat or Tmax ignores the fact that CO2 mainly effects Tmin.
The primary symptoms of greenhouse gas-driven warming include:
Nighttime Warming Exceeding Daytime Warming: Nights are warming faster than days. Greenhouse gases act as a “blanket” that traps heat escaping from the Earth’s surface at night, whereas solar-driven warming would typically see a greater increase during the day when the sun is active.
Scientist who ignores that fact is deliberately biased.
Scientist Greene, PhD Nothing, knows more than an actual scientist with a PhD in science related to climate scientist. And of course Scientist Greene ignores the Urban Heat Island which keeps nights warmer as they slowly release the heat gained during the day due to all the heat generated within the city.