Why are we not discussing trying to stop these disasters?

Because most people know that every time we try to control nature we fail. I mean look at Hurricane Katrina, we had enough advance notice given to people along the coast to evacuate but New Orleans and Louisiana failed to follow the advice and waited until after New Orleans was underwater to call it a disaster area and ask for Federal aid.

Also, more of the recent research is pointing that gasp the Earth and natural forces have stronger effects on global temperatures. I even had Dana explain how the little ice age was created and prolonged but when the major volcanoes stopped erupting and the solar activity increased we started to warm up again.

For the people who are saying that man's emissions are driving global warming, then how come most researchers who don't have government grants or people who retire from these organizations say that there is more evidence that it is natural. Even the IPCC says that climate change is only likely to be caused by human emissions. This is a movement away from man is causing it that they held only 10 years ago.

There are many natural disasters:

That you suggest that these are not being discussed is nonsense, there is quite a lot of safety information on how to avoid/minimize the chance of being hit by lightning.

"A single tsunami from Dec 2004"

Lead to the Tsunami Warning System which now warns of such events.

Can we stop earthquakes or volcano's, now you are just being silly

Can we reduce our output of Co2, Yes

And as for $75 billion spent on global warming, large amounts are spent on monitoring and researching earthquake activity around the world and large amounts are also spent on designing and building homes and office blocks that can survive quite powerful earthquakes, because most people killed in earthquakes are killed by building collapse.

Just as scientists are trying to do something about GW there are also thousands of scientists researching earthquakes and volcano's (and have been for many decades) but you seem to have missed this in your efforts to run down science.

We do. There as been a lot of research into predicting earthquakes and storrms. We have established building codes to make sure buildings can withstand the natural events. We have tsunami warmings. We have build levees. We spend Billions to defend against disasters and to clean up after them. We aslo enacted regualations to stop acid rain and prevent more Chernobles or Three Mile Islands. We do all that. We don't know how to stop earthquakes, and so far as we know they are natural. There is not something we can do to stop earthquakes.

And don't be so sure that nobody has died from AGW. 37,000 people died from the Euopean heat wave in 2003, plus droughts cut food production.

There is nothing we can really do to STOP these disasters, they are all natural and caused by mother nature. However, we can try our best to prevent deaths that these disasters cause. It is true that the disasters have become much more common and frequent in the past couple of years, and that could be a sign of global warming. Even though global warming is not proven yet, it is still a very reasonable hypothesis and the nature of humankind tends to prove things before they can do anything about. I don't think we can really do much TOGETHER, but we can still make a difference if each and every one of us take the time to protect the environment (if not "protect it", at least to not harm it)

I'd prefer to apply game theory to each problem in turn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Global warming isn't lightning strikes. Extensive research has been undertaken into climate, and estimates of the cost of inaction, adaption and mitigation have all been made. It appears that mitigation is the cheapest and safest in the long term. Not to mention the ethical implications of knowingly damaging our children's wellbeing and the rights of non-human life.

I'd rather pick the cheapest, safest and most ethical solution in each case, rather than have some ideological tendency towards a policy.

Finally, there is research linking global warming with deaths. The 2003 European heat wave was linked to global warming (~30-35kdeaths) & the WHO estimates it's led to an increased death rate of about 150,000+/year so far.

http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/press_release...

Of course, you can't directly point to an individual death and say 'THAT'S GLOBAL WARMING'. If you argue that statistical methods aren't acceptable, then I expect you also believe that air pollution, obesity and smoking can't kill anyone.

Wow, we have someone here who believes earthquakes don't cause deaths and another that believes natural disasters are becoming more common.

The former is fairly obvious and the latter is unsubstantiated. How do you guys get through a regular day? Who ties your shoes?

Err, our best science tells us that global warming WILL cause a great deal of hardship if it isn't properly dealt with. I'm not completely sure what your objection is.

Many people come up with arguments against the existance of human-caused global warming that make it sound like it's so obviously false that even a child could spot it. We hear that the scientists haven't considered that the sun might be causing it. We hear that they obviously haven't studied history and seen that the earth has warmed before. We are told that warming increases atmospheric CO2 levels not the other way around. We're told warming or CO2 is actually good for the planet, or that Al Gore invented global warming to make money, that other planets are also warming, that antarctic ice is increasing, scientists methods or instruments are dodgy or that the earth is actually cooling. All those scientists must be complete morons if they're making as many mistakes as some people are telling us. Or maybe, just maybe it's worth looking to see if there are reasonable answers to all these popular concerns. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php is a great place to start.

If you were ill would you trust a fellow blogger, a wingnut on the internet or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion? Global warming is highly complex, and it takes a while to fully understand what it is, why it's happening and why it's a threat. This is a potential minefield to anyone who's not an expert on the subject. To illustrate the point try this: Google geocentric theory (the idea that the sun goes round the earth) and you'll find arguments that you won't be able to counter without resorting to some form of "But everyone knows most scientists say otherwise!"

It's understandable that people want to come to their own conclusions, but by far the best way to start doing that is to look not so much at what's being said, but at WHO is saying it. These are just some of the most significant people warning us of the human-caused global warming threat:

First, the scientists:

Look at what more than 45 scientific organizations are saying in this wikipedia page, including those most highly respected in the world, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on... and you'll start to understand what is meant when people talk about a "scientific consensus" on global warming. The list also includes the most respected organizations in the world. Surely there must be a few statements from scientific authorities which don't agree that man's greenhouse gas emissions are causing the globe to warm, and that this poses a threat to us? The answer is no, there are no such statements, basically the scientific community is pretty much decided on the fundamentals of this issue.

I invite you to be a skeptic and check it out for yourself. Look up some of those scientific organizations, research their opinions on global warming. Research their backgrounds and you'll see that they are genuinely considered to be at the forefront of science, with big reputations to uphold.

____________________

Looking at non-scientific sources is less important, I would say, but can still help clarify things. See http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm#... for another list of those who agree that man is causing dangerous global warming. However, this list includes other high-profile sources besides scientific ones. Here are just a few examples:

In 2008 (i.e. still during the George W. Bush era), all 16 US intelligence agencies (who aren't normally known for being green), including the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency jointly produced a report known as the National Intelligence Assessment. The report warned of a wide of a wide range of national security threats if global warming isn't properly addressed.

The Pentagon, in 2003 (i.e. also in the George W. Bush era) released a study which warned: "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. ...With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment"

Governmental representatives from 170 countries are meeting in Copenhagen in December this year to discuss what action to take against global warming.

John McCain promised to take action against climate change (again, this would suggest that it's NOT in fact a liberal plot)

Also in Britain where I live, all the major political parties, including the conservative party agree that global warming is man-made and a threat.

China has declared that it will take action on climate change and has recently closed coal power plants with a total of 7,467 generating units.

The president of the Maldives made the following remarkable short speech: http://vimeo.com/3661273

Exxonmobil is an oil giant, and the largest company in the world. For a long time they have funded those who deny global warming http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-war... However, in 2007 they finally stated that global warming is a serious risk and must be addressed by governments.

80 global corporations including Shell, BP, Duke Energy, Michelin and British Airways wrote a document to G8 leaders calling for stronger action against climate change.

_______________

So who are the skeptics?

As far as scientific organizations go, there are still a tiny handful who are non-comittal on the issue. However, none actually disagree that our greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

The Oregon Petition/petition project etc:

An online petition which anyone can sign. The number of signers is now up to 31,000, although you may hear it quoted as a lower number if someone isn't up to date. To sign you're supposed to hold a science degree, although it can be in ANY area of science, the names are not disclosed and nobody actually checks to see if the signers really do have degrees. See for yourself: http://www.petitionproject.org/

A compiled list of 400 scientists against global warming:

Amazingly, some people on this list are counted multiple times, and many are not scientists but engineers, inventors, economists etc.

Some fake scientific organizations which are actually just small groups with impressive sounding names (e.g. Australian Climate Science Coalition)

A few think tanks and advocacy organizations (i.e. groups with agendas to push, NOT scientists!):

e.g. The Heartland Institute, The Marshall Institute, The Competitive Enterprise Institute...

A tiny handful of oft-quoted individual scientists.

Robert M. Carter, Richard Lindzen, S. Fred Singer, Roy Spencer etc.

A more complete list is available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_op... However, most of these skeptics are qualified in fields other than CLIMATE science, which is the relevant field.

A slew of journalists, writers, bloggers and documentary makers who present different versions of events, where global warming is portrayed as shambles/conspiricy/liberal plot. They are pretty successful at convincing people, because your average member of the public doesn't know any better.

__________________

Forget the shouting match and and the highly confusing media debate. We rely on science in just about every aspect of our lives, and global warming is a scientific issue. Although we can never know the future for certain, it is wisest to base our actions on what the overwhelming majority of the worlds experts are telling us!

Humans ignore things that make them fret if they don't have to. That is why.

maybe we should be paying a little more attention to 2029, just in case Chicken Little IS right........

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/