The facts are, and I wrote on another thread,  
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/7/17111/15550

As of 2007 more than 500 weather-related disasters are affecting more than 250 million people each year.
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/500-weather-related- ...

According to a report by British "charity" Oxfam, weather-related disasters, caused by global warming, have quadrupled over the last twenty years reaching a record 500 per year.

http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/nargis-asias-2nd-mos ...

In the cyclone Nargis case, the tropical cyclone as a natural phenomenon, climate change as an accelerant (enhancer) and abject poverty as the ultimate decider (most of the Nargis destruction occurred in Myanmar's shanty towns) all played a role in claiming so many lives.

Even though the Sahara appears to have dried out slowly, it fits the usual definitions of "abrupt climate change," meaning it was still difficult for animals, plants, and even people to adapt, says Richard Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University in State College. "The questions that many people ask--'What will happen where I live to the water and the plants in my lake?--require additional advances before they can be answered, and the new data point to the challenge ... of providing those answers."

   Al Gore's "traveling global warming show," the award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," includes a long flyover shot of majestic Antarctic ice shelves. But this shot was first seen in the 2004 blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." Sculpted from Styrofoam and later scanned into a computer, the ice shelf "flyover" looks real.

    Karen Goulekas, the special effects supervisor for "The Day After Tomorrow" said the shot is a digital image. She was glad Al Gore used it in the documentary since "It is one hell of a shot." Both movies use the shot to convincingly portray global warming, but it is left to the audience to decide if this created image can both entertain and educate us about our changing planet.

I'm sure they won't even try to donate anything to the victims either. After all, they just have to adapt, right? And if they'd just accepted nuclear energy, everything'd be fine...

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Think even more about how much some people have invested their entire self-worth into their cars, motorcycles, airplanes or boats. Just go down to your local marina and tell yourself that 9/10ths of the fleet there will soon be worthless because there will either be no gas to fuel the power boats or to get the sailboat owners to the marina.

Weekend social clubs that consist largely of fuel burning followed by beer are going to get hit hard. All those Harley riders and Rockcrawlers are going to look like the selfish a??holes they have always been.

As far as these people are concerned "vehicle operator" is who they are, their true selves. "Yeah, Monday through Friday I operate a kiln at the toilet plant but I'm really a sprint-car driver."

Expect outright denial of reality on all sides.

Put the Carbon Back

Well actually, according to the scientific data out there, "global warming" has DEFINITELY NOT been accelerating over the past decade, but rather the opposite.
Here is a brief introduction to the topic in the following Hadley global temperature record, with added comments by me.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
This png file may be slow to open, and zoom out required.

If you are prepared to study this, and see that it is good news, I can add additional evidence, expanding on that good news.  If you don't understand it, please say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...[2] Though the colossal crises such as the African famines of the early 1980s, the Bangladesh cyclone of 1991 and the Asian tsunami cause an enormous loss of life, the new worrying trend is the increase in small to medium-sized disasters. The death toll caused by these disasters has risen..."

The Asian Tsunami was caused by an undersea earthquake which had no connection with climate change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please also visit my comment @

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/5/11626/26588#com ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't get me wrong, I'm not minimising these disasters, but bringing them into perspective and what might be controllable cause.

BTW, what do you think about the MILLIONS of human deaths and appalling suffering which could be eliminated by the "civilised world" if we wanted to?

I doubt if there are many people that do not find the Myanmar disaster to be terrible, including climate rationalists like me.  However, you assume a lot without attempting to understand the science or things in statistics such as clusters.  You might even find my post above to LGT helpful if you can overcome your prejudice.  For instance why do you think Myanmar was preventable?

There is much written about the suffering in Africa, which IS PREVENTABLE

What is your position on this?  Activist or in-activist?
If you are in the latter category, does that make you vermin?
What sort of adjective would you attach to vermin in that case?

For example, extract from:
http://cozay.com/

MORE THAN 30,000 CHILDREN WILL DIE TODAY IN AFRICA
"Twenty percent of Africa's children will die before the age of five" a recently released report stated. The statement was part of a series of reports that demonstrate the horrible conditions currently facing children throughout Africa.
"Every day 30,000 children die from a combination of disease- infested water and malnutrition," the report continued. "Water-borne diseases are claiming one child every three seconds. These diseases are the major killers of small children in Africa."
In addition to those lives being claimed for lack of clean water and malnutrition, diseases such as AIDS, malaria, pneumonia and typhoid fever are killing record numbers as well.
"As a consequence of the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa," one report stated, "it is estimated that more than 18 million people have died to date, of which over 3 million were children. Additionally, more than 25 million adults are currently infected which will result in the continued increase in the number of orphaned children. To date, more than 15 million children have already been orphaned as a result of the epidemic. Another 1 million children are currently infected with the disease."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, if I multiply >30,0000 x 356, that makes  ~11,000,000 CHILDREN each year that actually DIE.   There is a lot of other suffering that is attendant with that

So yeah, we can save up the $$$ from global warming mitigation to attack other problems... and then we find that we shouldn't be attacking those other problems anyway, because that'll be Socialist Government Intervention.

Let's just use the $$$ for bashing Al Gore instead.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Any respectable scientist knows that proving that hurricanes are "caused" by global warming can't be proven.

If you want to see a better example, take a look in our own backyard with all those tornadoes in America's mid-section. Now that's impressive, a record breaking year. Interestingly, the tornado activity is caused by cold air to the north mixing with warmer-than-usual air in the south.

This is a bad sign because polar melt-water will continue to cool the northern tier, while the south should continue to warm (aside from El Nino events). Global warming can partly explain some of that, at least.  -sam

Onward through the fog

The most tornadoes occurring over a period of time occurred on April 3rd and 4th, 1974.

This tornado outbreak, known as the "Super Outbreak", produced 148 tornadoes in less than 24 hours from Michigan to Alabama. Several cities in this outbreak were hit twice from separate tornadoes, including Harvest, AL, which experienced an F5 tornado at 7:15 pm and an F4 tornado at 7:45 pm.

The facts, the incontrovertible evidence, remain the same:

As of 2007 more than 500 weather-related disasters are affecting more than 250 million people each year.

According to a report by British "charity" Oxfam, weather-related disasters, caused by global warming, have quadrupled over the last twenty years reaching a record 500 per year.

http://msrb.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/500-weather-related- ...

This is my last word on this because other than the glaring evidence there's nothing more to add.

http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/the-500-a-barrel-pro ...

And guess what - the earth's population DOUBLED between 1960 and now and most of those people moved into the "poorer" parts of town as in in hurricane floodplains.

Charities are notorious for over representing data in their field.  Whatever malady they address, it's always responsible for 110% of what's ailing people.

You also fail to note the continued absence of ANY hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

Don't suppose ya realized that hurricane season doesn't start until June 1st.

Really?  Thank goodness.   Because you're completely wrong.   There is no linkage to "global warming" at all.

As I said, there's nothing more to add to the evidence.

Charities are notorious for over representing data in their field.  Whatever malady they address, it's always responsible for 110% of what's ailing people.

If you want to prove Oxfam wrong, then you ought to research the number of weather-related disasters in the 20 years prior to their report period and compare notes with them.

On an entirely separate note, there are a handful of "house commenters" [greeters?] on just about every busy blog you visit these days whose "mission" [job?] seem to be spinning the facts, negating the obvious, misinforming the less informed and otherwise disseminating disinformation.

You can usually tell who those guys are by taking a close look at the comments:

1. Their propaganda serves special interests, corporate or government agendas.
   
2. Usually offer no source, or highly questionable ones for their "information."
   
3. Spend hours on end on the forums "churning out" and regurgitating in excess of a thousand words each day.

No offense intended!

Ps. Retired with "sufficient income" and with no serious vices, I can only manage about 1-2 hours per day at my computer screen!

I invited you to look at a graph which shows that there has been NO global warming over the last decade, from a RELIABLE scientific source.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ... ...
This png file may be slow to open, and zoom out required.

This is not psuedo science as you seem to suppose; the original is from the UK Met office and ancilliaries.

You will find that alarmists will make different interpretations of things according to their agenda.  Media only enjoys bad news.

This scientific evidence is just some of the good news that you don't hear in the media.  I've been fully retired for 13 years, and my interest is in the truth only.

If you don't understand the graph, please ask.

I would like to suggest that Oxfam does have an agenda, and that some of their assessments are highly subjective.  Some are provenly wrong.

After all, these people just need to adapt, right? Right? Adapt adapt adapt!

Hey look, if we spend our money on mitigating global warming, then we won't have any money left to conduct ad campaigns attacking Al Gore! Oh noes!

Compassionate capitalism!

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

This is most brilliant thing I've read in a long time!

As a mature individual [I hope] you ought to know that "information" coming out of the government controlled institutions in the UK [or Australia] is just as reliable as the data concocted by the special-interest-controlled institution in the United States.

What happens if the government-paid scientists don't toe the mark? Here's the most recent example: EPA official no match for Dow
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/epa-official-resigns ...

Oxfam is not the only organization to report the rise of the climate-related disasters.

You'll find more examples below
Floods affect 500 million people per year, will worsen with warming [mongabay quoting UNEP]
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0810-un.html

Here's a graph produced by Munich Re representing the number of disasters in the 1950-2000 period posted at
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2002/issue4/0402p62.html ...

And an older document by UNDP:
http://www.undp.org/cpr/documents/climatechange_factfacts ...

Based on the incontrovertible evidence, and for the sake of your credibility (with me at least), I hope you'll reconsider your stance.

The Hadley temperature graph that I referred to you has been one of the data sources that have previously been used to identify the global warming scare.  It is a co-op between the UK Met office and scientists at the University of East Anglia.  The UEA, especially Professor Phil Jones, have been trumpeting bad news for many years, but just recently, they have been obliged to quietly publish what has been described by many scientists as a plateau in global temperature for the last ten years, OR, no warming for a decade.

Similarly, NASA GISS, headed by alarmist Dr. Hansen who helped Al Gore make that shocking global warming movie has been obliged to publish somewhat similar data, which you can see at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
Can you not see that even Hansen, the great exaggerator shows a plateau for the last decade?    I can explain further if you are interested in GOOD NEWS.

Of course, as you may know, the media seems to prefer shocking or bad news.

"I refer you to the reply I gave earlier!"

That goes for any sockpuppets you might have.

See graphs from the official sources of global temperature above

a) The UK Hadley centre
b) NASA  (GISS.....James Hansen)

a) The UK Hadley centre
b) NASA  (GISS.....James Hansen)