This isn't really about any supposedly "required" narrative; that's just noise on your part. The fact is that this article is deeply flawed from the very begin

This isn't really about any supposedly "required" narrative; that's just noise on your part. The fact is that this article is deeply flawed from the very beginning. The media reports he cites are about more frequent and stronger hurricanes. He then pulls a Lucy-yanks-football-away, and pretends that the issue is about how expensive hurricanes are, and that they are more expensive because more property has been built in their path. But this was not the original claim. This is just bullshit from someone desperate to discredit climate science. It gets worse from there. Further down, he characterizes looking at post-1980 data as "cherry-picking", which is laughable. This guy moves the goalposts so often that I'm surprised he can even find new locations to move them to.