Easy Money?

It seems that someone stands to make some easy money on Don Boudreaux's recent wager:
So confident am I that the number of deaths from violent storms will continue to decline that I challenge Mr. McKibben—or Al Gore, Paul Krugman, or any other climate-change doomsayer—to put his wealth where his words are. I'll bet $10,000 that the average annual number of Americans killed by tornadoes, floods and hurricanes will fall over the next 20 years. Specifically, I'll bet that the average annual number of Americans killed by these violent weather events from 2011 through 2030 will be lower than it was from 1991 through 2010. 
If environmentalists really are convinced that climate change inevitably makes life on Earth more lethal, this bet for them is a no-brainer. They can position themselves to earn a cool 10 grand while demonstrating to a still-skeptical American public the seriousness of their convictions.
To swap metaphors, I don't really have a dog in this race; however I do wonder if Don is pulling a subtle trick here.  On the one hand, it's hard to define (and therefore measure) the severity of a "violent storm" and therefore a proxy that's clear like "death" can be a useful substitute.  But I suspect that the number of deaths from these storms will have a lot more to do with quality of housing construction and building codes, as well as our storm detection and notification systems, than with the storms themselves.  These features are under the direct control of modern man, and will almost certainly continue to improve over the next 20 years.

Therefore, it seems possible that storms will become more numerous and severe and the resultant deaths will decrease.  It's also possible (although I dasn't posit this as an actual theory) that both of these things will happen and we'll discover within twenty years that the storm patterns aren't being exacerbated by carbon emissions.