Has any of the evidence that denies anthropogenic climate change been subject to peer review?

It does seem that losses are increasing. However, I wouldn't ascribe most of the increase to global warming. There seem to be several other, more relevant factors.

Such as: 1. Inflation. Except for the last year or so, inflation has made everything more expensive.

2. Population. Whenever there's a problem, more people are affected.

3. Population again. Increasing population drives people to inhabit more marginal locations, so that when there is a problem, they are more likely to be in trouble.

Cost/benefit ratio of mitigating versus adapting this should not be a factor. Adapting is nearly always a process of trying to bring poorer environments up to the level of "normal" ones. It is true that we ought to work on reducing risk brought on by global warming.

It is also true that, like New Orleans, the minimization of risk is not going to be anywhere near universally acceptable. Consider - there is a real chance that warming will bring dust bowl days back to the American grain producing regions. You cannot "adapt" to that in any meaningful way.

You're just going to lose that grain production.

It should but it will not be. The AGW backers love to bring out the cost of things destroyed by the environment without stating that is some cases we only recently moved into high risk areas.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.