Certainly, what number of events over what period of time to be considered frequently is a judgement call and different people and different groups of people will have different criteria to determine this.

The problem with records, as they currently exist, is that they are partial at best. It doesn't take much for extent records to be destroyed. As a civilisation, we do not value things like this.

As a consequence, when those looking into what has happened in the past, personal recollection is considered extremely unreliable and is often ignored.

Some time in the last year, I did a search for extreme weather events that occurred between 1850 and 1910 in Queensland, Australia. The kinds of records that are available are quite sparse. However, a couple of interesting things did arise.

1. The population of that area was quite small during the time period in question. The records come from farms and cattle stations mostly.

2. The recorded values aren't usually used today, though when I was a child and a teen, those values were regularly given during the cyclone season to warn people of the severity of the events. The values were for barometric pressure. I found the recorded values to be so much lower than what was published during the 1960's and 1970's. The inference being that these extreme weather events were spectacularly bigger and more destructive than the events recorded in recent years.

The actual destruction to human property and lives was minimal due to the low population density of those times.

There are a lot of factors that go into how "destructive" recent events are. If you look at the bigger picture, what we can see is that increasing population density and the subsequent population distribution and the subsequent greed by various factions means that there are more and more people now living in places that a century ago, no one would have lived in because they knew that to do so would be foolish as the weather events would be destructive in those areas.

When it boils down to it, people en bulk tend to be less wise and more easily manipulated. If climate scientists and those that support the anthropogenic climate change agenda want to get to be supportive, they need to be less political and less dogmatic and much more open. As I have said elsewhere, if climate scientists can answer specific question in a clear logical manner then they can have the benefit of the doubt. If they don't and they won't then one can quite logically call their utterances as rubbish. I'm still waiting fifteen years after my initial questions and still nary an answer.

Your opinion over whether or not anthropogenic causes are responsible for climate change is still, at this time, just an opinion. We do not have sufficient facts or research to determine this, nor do we have sufficient facts or research to determine what mitigation protocols will be effective in the face of climate change.

Does climate change exist? Of course it does. We have the obvious evidence before us. But, is it anthropogenic? That we cannot tell at this point. Do humans alter the environment? Yes, we have seen this over a period of a couple of millenia. Does this environmental change have gross effects on climate? We really don't know. We don't know the long term feedback cycles within the planetary system and these feedback cycles are important.

Anyone who declares that they know for certain, is just blowing smoke in your eyes. If we cannot stop the dogma and the politics about the subject, we will not even begin to understand the complexity of our planetary system. I have had arguments with scientists and all I can say is that they need a good engineering education to understand the limitations of their theories and models. Many seem to live in a fairy land that ignores reality. Maybe it is just the scientists I have come in contact with.