"It is now beyond doubt that climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters..."

No it isn't. Don't be silly. No reputable climate scientist has linked recent disasters with global warming, and no reputable study has shown any significant increase in natural disasters. You are simply frothing up hysteria and making an emotional appeal with no foundation in fact. Why does OO continue to regurgitate these straw-man articles which have no foundation in anything more reliable than the front page of the newspaper?

A brief investigation of the history of weather events would help your thinking, although it would do nothing for your case.

"It is this message from children I take this week to a United Nations conference in Geneva on Disaster Risk Reduction."

Ah, follow the money -- I should have guessed. You are actually being PAID to promulgate this crap.

From the news yesterday we note children in Blue MTS and central NSW playing in 10 Centermeter deep snow seemed to be enjoying themselves. God save them from Global warming as their 40 year old parents had never experienced such effects of Global warming that early in May.

Isn't it interesting that all the alarmists who fervently argue for truth in science and accuse skeptics of misusing the facts, are absent?

Surely they will correct this person who is cynically misusing "science" for her own profit.

Otherwise, one could only conclude that they agree ..?

Ma'am .. the children are resilient and will adapt, with the UN or your organization's interference.

Hey, what do you reckon of all the children in Japan who didn't save their parents and families .. failures? What a dreadful example, but I guess you reach a point in getting funding and boondoggles that anything goes eh?

What do you think the families of the people who died in the tsunami will make of such abject exploitation.

"For me the lesson is a clear one. In order to ensure that every child survives a disaster we must listen to their voice and include them in our plans to lessen the effects of disasters on vulnerable communities." yep, next time there are floods in Queensland, we'll ask children .. "what shall we do?"

Unbelievable .. but I guess this is the world of NGOs and government parasites, and of course, it's our taxes supporting this. This makes my choice of charity, Guide Dogs Victoria, such a clear and easy choice.

Suzanne,
A timely reminder NOT to support 'Save the children' when next they ask for public support. Does STC get government financial support?

I can hardly believe you are CEO of the organization. Yet they are paying for your European trip, thats nice!

You are with the fairies in the garden and I do wonder what your age is.

Suzanne
to add to the chorus of disapproval over what is ultimately a silly article, you do realise that earthquakes and tsunamis cannot be linked to climate change?

For that matter the floods in Brisbane and Vicoria are known to be the result of the present la nina cycle, plus the overarching cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and not to what is generally understood to be climate change. It is possible, however, to plausibly argue that climate change made the floods worse. How much worse? No-one knows.

Tornadoes I hear you say? They are linked to generally cooler temperatures. They are the result of the ruling la nina, which has caused temperatures to drop sharply in the past few months. Scientists have been arguing over trends in storms for years now and haven't come to anything that could be described as a consensus.

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)

Skeptic Skeptic - to go over the ground again, our arguement with Suzanne is two fold. First she drags in climate change and insists that there is a link between disasters and climate change, which is hard considering that the main disaster she cites in an earthquake and tsunami. That's a stretch even for CSIRO-activists and, to judge from some of the reports I've seen, certain sections of the organisation are activist.

The second is she says nothing about what should be done. We should be doing something but what? Where? As another poster has pointed out, if a child knew what to do in an earthquake why didn't the adults involved in her little parable know. Why should we educate the child over the adult? Or is the object to feel good rather than save lives?

We are not the ones with our heads in the sand.

Bugsy - forgot to say before good to hear from you. Keep it up, you might land a punch yet.

Yeah, Pericles pretty much has the right of it, I think the article is pap as well, but not because of the climate change references. But the indignant reactionism of the 'sceptics' is so on show today.

Oh and Mark, I can tell when I land punches.

The government’s climate change salesman Tim Flannery has admitted: if all world carbon emissions ceased today, we would see no change in the temperature of the atmosphere for 1000 years! That's amazing when the same person tries to sell us the idea it only took 70 years to increase the temperature and he wants us to support a carbon tax to fight the climate change.

Let's get real - taxing us will not lower global temperatures, or greenhouse gases and it won't reduce the number of hurricanes, droughts, or snowstorms. Those who believe we should be doing something are kidding themselves if they think humans can influence global weather patterns and those that support Julia's carbon tax are simply in Lala-Land.

When six-year old Suzunosukefelt 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.

Excellent article Suzanne - the paramount issue being safety of children in disasters - Disaster awareness and management for children - things I have always worked through with my children over past years, regarding all types of disasters and situations, some of which, my children already experienced prior to 2010 and 2011.

Sound strategies put into action during disasters without panic save childrens lives.

Well of course they do, weareunique.

>>Sound strategies put into action during disasters without panic save childrens lives.<<

You can prove this statement quite easily.

- unsound strategies are unlikely to be effective.

- sound strategies that are not put into action during disasters are unlikely to save lives.

- sound strategies put into action in the absence of a disaster would be a waste of time.

- sound strategies put into action during disasters in a state of panic would be counterproductive.

So you are absolutely, completely and irrefutably correct in your assertion.

Unfortunately, like the author, you provide no guidance as to what these magical strategies might be, or how their "soundness" can be measured. Or even why they apply to children, and not adults.

Or indeed why we should continue to subsidise such vapid meanderings put forward - extremely expensively - in the name of charity.

Or even why they apply to children, and not adults.

Or indeed why we should continue to subsidise such vapid meanderings put forward - extremely expensively - in the name of charity.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 15 May 2011 5:04:05 PM

Pericles - have you not raised children or taught kids safety measures - our future generation who become adults in the blink of an eye?

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.

Now here is a lesson from a six year old:
Be prepared, take precautions, do not deny that it is happening, run up the hill or taken in another context, cut carbon emissions, just in case.
This is for the trolls.