I think you're mistakenly interpreting that quotation as claiming that there is no relationship between temperature increase and catastrophe losses. But it inst

I think you're mistakenly interpreting that quotation as claiming that there is no relationship between temperature increase and catastrophe losses. But it instead makes narrower claims, such as: he was right to question the report; the graph was based on inaccurate information; the later data didn't show a relationship between temperature increase and catastrophe losses. If he'd written something like "Because there is no relationship between temperature increase and catastrophes, as proven by the insufficient evidence to support that, I was right to question the report", then you'd be right. But he didn't say that. I think he's only saying that he was right to question the report because that graph was inaccurate and invented, and because later data showed there was insufficient evidence for the relationship it was supposed to show. If reports shouldn't contain inaccurate and invented data, especially invented data that isn't similar to empirical data, then he was right to question it.