It is true that it is not 'beyond doubt' that climate change has not been shown to increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters. This requires a long time scale for any frequency and severity to be linked to climatic data. However it is also true that it is predicted to affect extreme weather events.

However, this is a minor point that ignores the main thrust of the article, which is actually addressing what many 'non-warmists' believe should be done. That is, more attention should be paid to distaster planning and mitigation, and Suzanne Dvorak says this from the perspective of including children in such mitigation and planning.

It is not an article about anthropogenic global warming , not even close.

It looks to me as though the previous commentors hated of everything 'climate change' has blinded them to actual message of the article.
Not all that surprising though.

That brings me to the next level of criticism.. Children should be included as a matter of course in disaster planning, but I would have been far happier with the article if, instead of dragging in climate change, the author had said something about just what she means. What can be done in planning for children that isn't done now?

Are there any examples? Did any children die in the various catastrophes she mentions which would not have died if this or that had been done?

bugsy, climate is mentioned 5 times and disaster 26 times, the article is in the league of a lot of papers these days, that all mention Climate Change to draw attention to what would otherwise be run of the mill article.

So as an alarmist I'm sure you're familiar with the type, that very few papers are written on the cause of climate change but masses are written that use it as a crutch e.g. Lions of the Serengeti and the effect of Climate Change. These are all of course counted by alarmists as "climate change scientific papers" when self delusion is required to deal with skeptics.

I have no problem with people mentioning climate change, the climate changes .. yes it does .. why would you say people have a hatred of it, do you not understand why some people are skeptical of CO2 being blamed for the climate "naturally" changing and require a scapegoat? (and a great Big New Tax)

The Author is using climate change to make her article even more hysterical (the word disaster 26 times .. did I mention that?) than it would be if she just stated her case .. that's irritating, but what's worse is she is downright wrong and like many an alarmist, mistakes everything that happens naturally is caused by CLIMATE CHANGE! Then implies it is un-natural.

Some of us draw attention to this because otherwise this will join the annals of Climate Science victimhood, and scare the children.

It's not necessary to exaggerate like this, nor is it acceptable for such utter BS not to be challenged.

As an alarmist do you find it acceptable to exaggerate like this?

Ok Amicus, so you accept that the climate changes. You probably accept that the climate is changing. But you don;t accept the AGW cause behind it. That's fine.

Ms Dvorak did not mention AGW once.

Therefore she couldn't have exaggerated about it. She did say that climate change 'increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters' was 'beyond doubt'. This is of course an exaggeration, which I have already commented on, but it is not the main message.

Yes, she mentioned climate, in the context that it impacts extreme weather events. She also mentioned 'disaster' quite a few times, but probably because that is what this article is about. The clue is in the title.

Curmudgeon doesn't like it because it doesn't tell him anything he wants to know. That's fair enough as well. I agree that children should be included as a matter of course, but the implication is that they aren't. Things like child-specific vaccinations and planning measures for diseases that cause high infant mortality come to mind. The author did not give these sorts of examples, but then she isn't writing for a journalism class or making a submission to an emergency management inquiry either. It's obvious that her job is to remind us to remember the children in times of disaster.

I also agree with curmudgeon that the author should probably not have mentioned climate change, especially in the secind sentence. It tends to draw the ire of a lot of angry coots that jump down your throat for even mentioning it and that tends to detract from the main message.

What a terrifying article. Bordering on the scandalous.

It is virtually content-free. The only example of "what to do" is a six-year-old remembering a lesson from school.

"When six-year old Suzunosuke felt the earthquake he remembered from lessons at school that there were was a risk that a tsunami would follow. He immediately alerted his father to that risk and, heeding the warning, his father gathered up the family and ran up the hill to safety. Hundreds died in Onagawa, but Suzunosuke's family survived because he knew the dangers and what action to take."

This generates some interesting questions.

Like why did his father not have this information, but instead was forced to rely on a six-year-old? Did the hundreds of others die because their six-year-old children failed to pass on the message?

Sounds more like a fairy story to me.

But if it is true, should not any education be more appropriately directed at the adults?

The rest of the piece is just emotive claptrap, plucking at the heartstrings to raise a few more bucks.

It does bring into the spotlight the shadowy life that these "Charities" lead, especially when the author casually drops the "I'm off on a boondoggle, courtesy of this flimsy piece of whimsy" line.

"It is this message from children I take this week to a United Nations conference in Geneva"

What message?

This, from the head of an organization that needs to spend 58c in order to raise every new net dollar from the public.

http://www.savethechildren.org.au/images/content/resources/Annual_Reports/Save_The_Children_Australia_Financial_Statements_2010.pdf

And whose eight "key management personnel" paid themselves a total of $1,485,419 last year - those eight folk on their own are diverting 2,5% of the total income - including government grants etc. - into their own pockets.

And if this is an example of the quality of their work, it is an appalling waste of all those generous donors' contributions, as well as a sad abuse of taxpayers' funds.

It's a pity that climate deniers automatically vilify anyone they disagree with, in this case, throwing stones at an organisation that has expertise in child wellbeing and poverty. Shame on you. I guess it also suits your world view to belittle anyone who asks action of us to make the world a better place.
As for the argument that there's no scientific evidence that demonstrates that anthropogenic climate change is real, I guess you mean that you have never read any such studies. Do a basic search for scientific peer review journal articles on the matter, and you will find literally hundreds. Do a search for evidence that there is no human effect and you will find zero.
Quote from CSIRO: "The modern climate is changing far more quickly than in the geological past. There is now strong evidence that recent
rapid climate changes are driven largely by a range of human activities." Oh, that's right, the CSIRO are a fringe vested interest sponging money off the government too aren't they.
I hope that sand is cozy around your ears, neighbours.(CSIRO, 2011, Science and solutions for Australia: Climate Change)