That's right Robert; maybe Taswegian's shed had termites but he overlooked this in his enthusiasm for believing in AGW.

The objective evidence for AGW has never got beyond GCM processing and that is why it has failed; simply put AGW is a product of programming not reality.

The only aspect of the AGW debate which, objectively, seems to have some unresolved element is whether humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the 20th and 21st centuries, or whether the increase has been natural.

Maybe Taswegian’s shed was flattened this month because it was structurally weakened by the 174 km/h wind three years ago, or because of termites as suggested as conceivable by Cohenite. What were the wind velocities in this month’s storm? Maybe the US insurers have factored in the rash of shifts from houses to trailers, and the drop in expenditure on home maintenance, caused by the Global Financial Heist.

Natural disasters were once well correlated with incidents of witchcraft, and before that with other actions incurring God’s wrath, and earlier still with actions incurring the wrath of multiple gods. What causes changes in natural phenomena remain in the realm of speculation powered by ideology and the need for research grants.

Warming by any cause will lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2 as it becomes less soluble in the warmer ocean. So will emission of CO2 through human activities

Agree with Robert Le Page!
No tornadoes in Australia? Tell that to the people living in south east Queensland's scenic rim, who recently had their houses destroyed!
Or the people living between Eidsvold and Theodore, who watched in horror, as an extremely robust "Willy Willy" came down and ripped a twenty mile long, mile wide swathe out of the local native forest, back in the sixties, leaving only match wood in its path!
Or people living in coastal communities in NSW, who watched while a "water spouts" on steroids come ashore, relatively recently, and left much property destruction in their wake!
As for one in one hundred year flood events, Queensland has just had three of them in three consecutive years!
What planet is the author living on?
The problem with multi media multi tasking, seems to be, information simply goes in one ear and out the other?
Some unkind contributors might suggest, that there is very little in between to stop it? Why are people so unkind?
As for El Nino; only 40% of these events produce drought like conditions?
Similarly, La Nina doesn't always result in destructive flood events?
I buy home and contents insurance every year! Not because I believe I'm in imminent danger of it blowing away, being washed out to sea, or rattled to the ground by an unusually strong earthquake; and don't laugh folks, we get lots of little ones, all over Oz, as very regular events!
I buy the insurance on the basis of the precautionary principle, that suggests that any of the aforementioned or worse, could be my future reality!
Satellite recorded footage provides absolutely irrefutable evidence, of entirely unprecedented ice melts, that are far more rapid than in any of the climate change models!
There is a measurable long term heating trend, with the last two decades being the warmest ever recorded! We have to hope that these changes are due to human activity!
Why?
Because if it is related to human activity, we can still reverse it with different behaviour!
Rhrosty

Rhrosty:
You have made a point . If the global warming is NOT related to human cause, then we are in big trouble.
I wonder if denialists like cohenite take out insurance?
To add to your list of "events", WA has had a few tornadoes, one quite recently went through the outskirts of Bunbury.
When we get the next big drought ( and we will) the demands from the extra millions that are expanding our population will not help either.

Robert LePage and Rhrosty

come now, you must know most of what you say is wild exageration. Trying to spot treads in storm damage and death toll is hard because storms are arguably the least important factor in such matters. The shift to the coast and the general increase in the value of housing over the years are far more important factors in increasing storm damage (when the big storms hit the coast they lose power), as is building codes in reducing damage.

Thus you can have an increase in storm violence and a decrease in deaths because the building codes have changed.

Now, do scientists agree that there is a link between temperatues and storms and can they agree that there has been a statistical increase in number and intensity of storms? Not sure on the first point but on the second point they've more or less agreed that they can't find one - not yet, anyway.

If you go back a few years you would have found papers saying yes and no and papers coming to diffent conclusions often had the same authors. Now they more or less agree that the evidence is mixed.. If you can take the discussion any further by all means do so..

Rhosty! "We have to hope that these changes are due to human activity! Why? Because if it is related to human activity, we can still reverse it with different behaviour!"

On the contrary, if it is just climate doing its thing -- as it did a thousand years ago, and again two thousand years ago -- we have every reason to believe that it will proceed to do what it did two thousand years and one thousand years ago, and cool down again.

What we SHOULD want to try and reverse is the Ice Age which is on the cards for us in the next few thousand years; and if anthropogenic CO2 can do that we should be emitting it for all we're worth. There is, after all, a reason why this is called the Interglacial Period.