Our World In Fake Data

Oxford University shows a huge increase in reported natural disasters since 1900, including twelve in 1927.

Natural Disasters – Our World in Data

It took me about thirty seconds to research the accuracy of the graph. The Red Cross described 1927 as the worst year in history, reporting 111 disasters – including 29 tornadoes, 24 floods, 9 hurricanes and 23 fires. The worst floods in US history occurred that year. The Mississippi River was flooded for more than six months, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to abandon their homes permanently. Vermont’s worst flood also occurred in November, 1927.

25 Nov 1927, Page 7 – The News-Review at Newspapers.com

St. Louis was destroyed by a tornado.

The Pittsburgh Press – Google News Archive Search

November flooding wiped out more than 1,000 bridges in Vermont, and drowned the Lieutenant Governor.

A number of record heatwaves occurred in 1927, including a protracted one in September and October, which killed scores of people.

15 Sep 1927, 1 – The Gazette at Newspapers.com

Warsaw Union – Google News Archive Search

Obviously the person who generated the graph didn’t do any research, and is simply making numbers up. Another graph from the same website shows death rates from natural disasters down 95% since the 1920s.

Natural Disasters – Our World in Data

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Our World In Fake Data

  1. Disillusioned says:


  2. Simon says:

    Hi Tony,

    Thanks so much for all the great work you are doing.

    I, like you, was once a proponent of the issue of AGW, until I looked at the data and what I had assumed up until that point was solid, peer reviewed and supportable science. Talk about a house of cards!

    I was shocked by what I found, and in particular the realisation that ‘climate sensitivity’ to increases in CO2, and therefore the whole basis for the magnitude of greenhouse effect claimed, was still a matter of current study, far from established and subject to a significant range in claims and confidence/ error. This one gaping hole is what changed my mind and spurred me to look deeper, and it comes up all the time when i speak with people on the subject…

    Just wondering if you might turn your razor wit and analysis to the topic? Seems to be the lynch pin in nearly all of the BS! Maybe even a series explaining what we do know and why its preposterous to claim runaway AGW on account of CO2?

    Thanks again for all the effort and time compiling the data, historical references and churning out videos. They’re very much appreciated and i recommend your YT channel every chance i get.

    Cheers, Simon.

    • D. Boss says:


      Not only are they fudging data to support their idiotic claims, but the models themselves have now been dis-proven countless times.

      If you understand the scientific method (which many of the alarmists apparently do not), one result or mistake or flaw in observed or experimental data, disproves an hypothesis. (Tony points out the data disproving alarmism every day, and thus far countless times – thanks for that)

      Check this one out:

      The so called experts are using literally a “flat earth” in their models! When radiative energy transfer in spherical systems yields very different results.

      The bottom line is the flat earth models under estimate solar energy influx by 2 W/m²! The CO2 forcing is said to be on the order of 1.6W/m². (and all sorts of feedback is also dramatically affected by using a flat earth vs the real spherical geometry of things)

      The models therefore cannot be correct, or even useful in any way on this error alone. There are at least a dozen similar errors inherent in the modelling GIGO fiasco.

      So does this “flat earth” error mean the models would read even higher temps for the past 30 years of models vs actual temps? Or does it mean the CO2 forcing is a negative value? Of course it is not as simple as that, however as an argument to those huge masses of scientifically ignorant climate change cultists – it will have an impact.

      The link to the actual flat earth paper is here:

      Soooo, when the alarmists call us “flat earthers” we can now shove this paper back in their faces with gusto!

  3. Peter says:

    Please note that the graph is about “reported” disasters event. If it is not reported, it does not end up in the statistics.

    I do not know how disasters where reported 100 yrs ago, but I am sure that with all the technology that we have nowadays that detecting (which is needed otherwise it cannot be reported) and reporting is more accurate now. Just like with the tornado count: the total number of tornadoes has gone up since the sixties because technologies to detect (e.g. Doppler radar) and report have improved.

  4. Anders VAlland says:

    You should add to this post the number of natural disaster deaths per reported disaster, i.e. try to combine the two graphs already shown. That should be fun (but a bit of work).

  5. feathers says:

    Tony is the master at sniffing out these fake claims. Yesterday a co-worker shared this time lapse video from reddit titled “The distribution of annual average temperature anomalies due to global warming from 1850 until today.” in the video you see two trends (1) anomaly of record hot temperature events increasing and (2) the global mean temp increasing over the past 50 years. Here is the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/d7bc8g/the_distribution_of_annual_average_temperature/

    I simply told my co-worker the graph was only achieved by cooling pre-1950 data and warming more recent data, and using way more “estimated” data in recent years. Of course they didn’t believe me. But in fairness, my explanation only covers the global mean temp. For record high temperature events, how is NOAA and others showing more extreme events now compared to say 1934, 1936, etc.? Is it because most weather stations only came online post 1960?

  6. Dandy says:

    The data is shocking. In 1931 they report 12 disasters and 3.71 million deaths. This is an average of 309,166 deaths per disaster. In 2018 282 disasters and 10,809 deaths and average of 38.
    Not to be crass but is 38 deaths even a disaster?

  7. Caleb Shaw says:

    I admire the speed at which you “fact check”. You can do in thirty seconds what would take me an hour. And it is not always easy to find an hour in a busy day. That is why your site is such a joy and relief.

    What bugs me is that some people simply don’t bother fact check at all. They continue to bleat “facts” that were debunked a decade ago. “Where have all the thinkers gone; long time passes…”

    “…..When will they ever learn? When will they eeeeever learn?”

  8. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Tony, I tried the little trick of tracing the CO2 rise from 1950 to 2000 curve and placing it over the Oxford Uni disaster curve between the same period. Almost an exact fit. Why am I not surprised! Seems similar to the NASA adjustments to US temperature, as you have shown in previous posts.
    “The distinction is clear. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
    Sherlock Holmes- A Scandal in Bohemia (1891), Arthur Conan Doyle

  9. MrPete says:

    Tony – cloudflare is blocking me and I can’t post. Not sure why. Happy to send helpful material to you directly…


  10. MrPete says:

    Hmmm… maybe it was the attached PNG? Here’s my content text:

    Hi Tony,
    We should connect. I don’t have a lot of time right now but am very willing to interact with you. From all I’ve seen, you’re a priority for me.
    1) A number of years ago I did research on the historical growth of all forms of human connecting tech more powerful than wind or muscle. Interesting how well it correlates to various “reported XYZ” increases ;) . I can give you the raw data.

    2) Some bash your use of a translated quote from a 2010 interview with Edenhofer of the IPCC. Here’s the original. Open in Chrome for translation… it’s worse than the one quote suggests! https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227 (I urge readers to save a copy ;) )

    3) Even worse is the long term strategy clearly followed over time by many. Most don’t know the source. Here it is: “Warm Words”, a commissioned PR campaign. Google: warm words ippr

    The beginning of the concluding recommendations may sound familiar. Emphasis mine:
    “Conclusions and recommendations
    Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion,aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.
    To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.

  11. MrPete says:

    Here’s the chart I mentioned: A History of Connecting Technology Adoption

  12. Greg Locke says:


    A report that also puts the “Our World in Data” chart into perspective. As Tony makes clear, it is nonsense on stilts.

  13. Mark Frank says:

    The Oxford University chart is clear on its source – EMDAT – a respected academic source with clear criteria for what counts as disaster and a clear description of how disasters get included in the database – thus providing consistency over time. Tony’s “research” appears to consist of searching for press articles on the subject.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    • Gator says:

      Mark prefers fake graphs from grantologists, over accurate graphs from anywhere else. You can show Mark that the graph is fake, but he doesn’t care as it conforms to his warped world view.

      If the grantologists said that Santa Claus causes climate change, Mark would be a believer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.