The Economist has come up with a leader and briefing on frequent environmental catastrophes and their economic cost (“The Rising Cost of Catastrophes” and “Counting the Cost of Calamities,” January 14, 2012). The articles offer many a good argument about wealth protection, but there is a pernicious thread that runs through both of them to the effect that the catastrophes are not due to climate change. “There is little evidence that big hurricanes come ashore more often than, say, a century ago,” goes the leader. The briefing goes farther: “A recent study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents the consensus among thousands of scientists, expressed little confidence in any link between climate change and the frequency of tropical cyclones.” In short, those seeing the link are deluded. I very much doubt this brazen assessment. After much vociferous debate among scientists, the United Nations Panel appears to be cowed into a specious consensus, if that is what it actually is. More likely, those who disagree keep mum for fear of more vociferous debate, and worse. But there remains the need for explanation of a growing number of catastrophes around the globe, as well as their intensity. In the absence of an alternative explanation, the verdict is clear enough: climate change. The only mystery is why the mighty newspaper chooses to focus on wealth alone, sweeping the cause of catastrophes under the rug.