Journal Articles

Weinkle, Jessica. 2019. Experts, regulatory capture, and the “governor’s dilemma”: The politics of hurricane risk science and insurance. Regulation and Governance.

Weinkle, Jessica, Landsea, C., Collins, D., Musulin, R., Crompton, R.P., Klotzbach, P.J., Pielke, Jr. R. (2018). Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017.  Nature Sustainability. 

Weinkle, J. and Pielke Jr., R. (2018). Weather and Climate Damage StudiesOxford Bibliographies in Geography.

Weinkle, J. (2017). The New Political Importance of the Old Hurricane Risk: A contextual approach to understanding contemporary struggles with hurricane risk and insurance.  Journal of Risk Research.

Weinkle, J. and Pielke, Jr., R. 2017. The truthiness about hurricane catastrophe models. Science, Technology & Human Values. 42(4): 547-576.

Weinkle, J. 2015. A public policy analysis of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Journal of Insurance Regulation. 34(2): 1-34. 

Weinkle, J., Maue, R. and Pielke Jr., R. 2012.  Historical global tropical cyclone landfalls. Journal of Climate. 25: 4729- 4735.

Broad, K., Leiserowitz, A., Weinkle, J., and Steketee, M. 2007. Misinterpretations of the ‘Cone of Uncertainty’ in Florida during the 2004 Hurricane SeasonBulletin of the America Meteorological Society. 88(5): 651- 667.

In Progress

Weinkle, J. Catastrophic Myths: Hurricane Insurance Science and Politics in the Fight for Equitable Coastal Cities

This is my first book length project. It sums up over 10 years of research on the science and politics of catastrophe insurance and presents the information in a simple, easy to understand argument. The book is set up around five political myths underpinning public fights about catastrophe insurance for hurricane risk (and flood potentially):

  1. The Myth of an Incompetent Public

  2. The Myth of Disaster by Subsidized Insurance Pricing

  3. The Myth of ‘Real Risk’ Pricing

  4. The Myth of an Apolitical Relationship between Science and Insurance

  5. The Myth of Disasters as an Insurance Problem

Weinkle, J. and White, S. An appraisal of environmental science advice in North Carolina.

In recent years, North Carolina made national headlines over the way policymakers interact with science advice.  Though scientists and policymakers need each other for legitimacy, the relationship often frustrates both groups and the public.  Time and again, scientists meet this frustration with calls for more and better science; more recently, policymakers meet the frustration by framing scientists as an out of touch elite.  This article presents an appraisal of science advice to policymakers in coastal North Carolina using three case studies of ongoing debate: drinking water quality, sea level rise, and shrimp trawling.  We demonstrate that science advice to policymakers is not destined for acrimony.  Rather, the way the groups interact with each other plays an important role in either supporting or undermining public trust in the policymaking process.  In order to strengthen the role of science in North Carolina policymaking, scientists need training on how to effectively interact with the democratic policymaking process without undermining policymaker authority.  Effective interaction does not mean that scientists necessarily win their policy preferences, it means that public trust in the policy process is preserved and decisions transparently reveal the value priorities of decision makers.   

Weinkle, J., Kinzer, K., and Halls, J. The relationship between wealth and flood risk over time.

Every new flood even results in acrimonious public debate about the cost of flood insurance. In Congress, legislators often invoke homeowner wealth as a reason for or against adjusting national flood insurance costs. What is the relationship between wealth and flood risk in the United States over time. This work uses GIS mapping methods of analysis to investigate the complexities of wealth and flood risk in the nation.

Weinkle, J. Climate science, Insurance and Societal Outcomes.

In the early 1990’s, hurricane losses stirred insurer interest in catastrophe modeling while Federal funding of science became increasingly constrained and policymakers showed increasing skepticism that predictive climate science (and predictive science more generally) could resolve society’s most pressing problems. In turn, the scientific enterprise and the insurance industry became closely entwined with scientists needing to make their work relevant and insurers needing ways to harness their models to manage risk and compete effectively in the market. What is the result of this relationship for society? What are the benefits and drawbacks of a tightly coupled scientific and insurance industry relationship? This work revisits earlier critiques of the social outcomes of predictive climate science and extends these concerns to current challenges in managing insurance regimes and economic development.


The looming trade war exposes a dependence on industrial farming. News & Observer. April 12, 2018.

Keepin' it real. Socializing Finance Blog. August 24, 2016

Science panels must stick to facts, not advocacy. Wilmington Star News. August 17, 2016

The Super Bowl's New Money.  Socializing Finance Blog. February 2016.

Why is US catastrophe insurance ratemaking SO political? Risk Frontiers Briefing Notes. May 2015.

When science meets politics. Wilmington Star News. January 31, 2015.

An Average Perspective on Insurance Profitability Cycles. Insurance Journal. October 6, 2014.

Understanding and managing model risk for reinsurance and ILS. Artemis Blog. September 25, 2014.

Universities do more than just prepare students for jobs. The Daily Camera. April 13, 2014.

Florida insurance rate lies: Why not drink the Kool-aid?  Sun Sentinel- Palm Beach edition. September 21, 2014.


Weinkle, J. 2013. The Prediction Racket: Characterizing, Constructing and Governing Florida's Hurricane Risk. University of Colorado Boulder.