It appears that you are quite reasonable and logical and even somewhat scientific
WHEN the data and your construction on them support your biases.
But, you appear to be quite sloppy and 'kludgey' when indulging in your personal attacks and hostility to constructions on reality at odds with your biases.
No, I was not kidding.
I have read convincing analyses that arrived at some considerable lists of statistically significant differences in some sorts of natural disasters and regions/nations--some such and their over all morality. I don't even remember what year I read such. I can't remember what keywords would be most likely to find such studies. But they were quite rational and used publically available statistics from the governments involved.
Your hodgepodge of examples illustrate nothing, to me.
Since morality is not a concept that can be universally agreed upon, i.e. many Christian denominations disagree on the definition of "morality", I fail to understand how anybody can be credible in trying to link natural, God-controlled phenomena to moral behaviors.