An article from Climate Change Dispatch (dated January 16, 2026) features Dr. Matthew Wielicki arguing that predicted climate-related disasters have not surged as expected. He cites the EM-DAT database (from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters), which tracks global climate-related events like droughts, floods, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures. Over the past 25 years, disaster counts have remained flat or even declined, with 2025 showing some of the lowest figures. He contrasts this with statements from bodies like the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the UN, which link warming to more frequent/intense extremes, suggesting the "crisis" narrative relies on unmaterialised feedbacks.
This perspective aligns with sceptical views that alarmist claims (e.g., escalating disasters as proof of catastrophe) haven't panned out in data. Similar arguments appear in lists of "failed predictions," often compiled by sceptics, highlighting over-the-top forecasts from media, activists, or outlier scientists that didn't occur.
Examples of commonly cited unmaterialised predictions include:
Arctic summer sea ice gone by ~2013–2022 (e.g., claims amplified by Al Gore or others in the late 2000s/early 2010s).
Maldives or low-lying islands/nations fully underwater by ~2018–2020.
New York City or major coastal cities underwater by ~2015.
50 million climate refugees by 2020.
Snow becoming "a thing of the past" in places like the UK (early 2000s media claims).
Specific apocalyptic deadlines like humanity wiped out or major tipping points by 2023 (e.g., some promoted by activists).
These often stem from sensationalized interpretations, individual scientists' worst-case scenarios, or non-climate-expert commentary rather than mainstream IPCC projections. Many were not core consensus predictions but got amplified in media or activism.
Sceptics like former IPCC contributor Judith Curry have argued that uncertainty is underplayed, extreme weather hype is overstated, and adaptation (rather than drastic mitigation) deserves more focus, given that catastrophic near-term disasters haven't materialised as some feared. The article highlights a valid point on observational data not matching the most alarmist rhetoric; specific doomsday predictions have repeatedly missed. Hence, the climate change alarmist position is falsified, and should be rejected, with zero net with it.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/climatologist-questions-climate-disasters/