Other BH posters expected it to be bad but I rather liked it:

At the risk of offending both sides, it is interesting to note how much they have in common. For both science and religion, extreme weather is a warning - in the most secular of meanings, a prophecy of what is to come. For both, at root, the cause is human behaviour - for believers, chronic moral breakdown stemming from denial of what they see as the laws of God. In the eyes of science, a different transgression - our plundering and using of the planet's resources in ways dangerous to it, and our, well-being, with a certain whiff of moral criticism in there (selfishness, profit, even greed). Then there is the outcome. Without action in either case we are looking at something akin to the end of the world as we know it.

Sure, Dunant buys 21st century catastrophe, based on science, sort of. But the comparison with the 17th century view is I think very useful. Will also be on iPlayer before long.

Having gone through burning witches and superstition she goes into more of the same.

I didn't think she quite did and that was why I found some encouragement in it.

Dunant didn't of course make the crucial point that similar levels of extreme events have far less cost in lives today compared to 17th century, because the world is far more affluent.

But, reflecting on it a little more, I think there may be a route here, via history, for the intellectual to come to realise that the current CAGW fervour is overblown. A soft landing, rather than having to say "Nigel Lawson was right all along," the poor loves.

Now that's what I call independent confirmation that it wasn't so bad! Thanks Paul.