Are these statistics including all disasters?

Have these numbers been adjusted for the less severe winters and lack of floods in populated areas of the world?

After all there will be fewer deaths from disasters that are minimized by climate change.

The same goes for technological advances and warning systems being refined every year saving lives.

These outliers are possibly three of many things that could skew this data.

JLB
USGS

Jennifer, Providence, RI

It is not vain to acknowledge that humans can and have repeatedly had significant impacts on the natural environment, beginning with the use of fire to modify forests and fields for the benefit of hunters. What is vain is to only count the deaths of humans when tallying the deadly consequences of climate destabilization. We are in the throes of the sixth great die-off of entire species. it is being driven largely by climate destabilization, but also by over fishing, industrial scale farming, and widespread habitat destruction through massive development and gross pollution. For the moment, for the wealthier societies, technology provides some buffer between the plight of flora and fauna and that of humans sharing the biosphere. In the poorer regions, however, the associated die-offs of climate refugees have already begun.

Rune, Sebastopol, California

Isn't it interesting that themen who is not capable to influence terestrical processes like the continental drift takes on extra terestrical driven systems like the climat system mainly powered by the sun.
To make it clear, when the Little Ice Age emergerd in the late Middle Ages the peolple did not think about influences out of human impact. They chased foreigners as witches to blame them for the catastrophies. After ages of relativly free sexuality and high life based on the good agricultural and trade conditions, priest blame the people for their high life and frigid life began to take place, the inquisition got on its peak. And all just because nobody would believe in extraterestrical influences on the world's climate system. It was only men who provoked the anger of God.
It seems we encounter a replay with other arguments but the same approach. And there are those who make their fortune with this campaigns.

Daniel J. Hahn, Eichenau, Bavaria/Germany

Deaths from the flu and thyroid disorder are down from 1900 too. Sure lots of people died in Galveston, Texas when the hurricane destroyed that city in the early part of the 20th century as compared to say Katrina. We build better buildings, have better warnings and better rescue apparatus. We had a much greater ratio of deaths to soldiers injured during every war before the current one. This isn't because the weapons of war are less damaging now, it means we have better technology to save battlefield lives.

This report says nothing about climate change as far as I can tell

Elisa, SF,

To all those Americans asking how can we possibly impact Mother Nature... nature is a delicate system in a delicate balance. Carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere have increased by 50% or so since the Industrial Revolution. That is what has thrown climate off-balance. As a result, nature has been busy for a long time adjusting many other variables in its system, to find a new balance. This cannot be good for humans, as civilizations, and the animals and plants they depend upon, have adapted to their prevailing climate patterns. Now, we have entered a period of rapid change, and many will lose out.

George, Nicosia, Cyprus

These findings shouldn't surprise anyone. Man-made global warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. But don't expect the kook left-wing environmental fanatics to lose their fervor. Environmentalism is their new religion, and they're fundamentalist in their beliefs. Anything that deviates from their orthodoxy (like science and reason) will be explained away.

Rick, Cape Canaveral, USA/FL

You are all heretics and "shall parish in the fires of doom", or so say-eth our great leader Al-Ron Gore, founder of our faith, the only true religion - "The Church of Climatology". Or was that "drown in the waters of doom", or "be eaten by starving polar bears" or whatever. I just read an article about an IPCC conference in Bali, and their problem is that they don't have enough parking for all the private jets for those attending; either these people don't have a clue, or they really don't have any intention to practice what they preach.

Paul, Elgin, IL

You cannot say that those eco-fanatics are ignorant. Some are quite learned in some areas. Those who have actually studied climate and still believe that humans have the present ability to overwhelm nature are terribly misguided. Animals put far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than humans. Natural processes put about 95% of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If humans magically disappeared from Earth, the difference in the amount of carbon dioxide would not be noticeable and barely measurable. In questioning those who are alarmists concerning global warming, I have found the great majority do not even know which gas makes up the majority of the air we breathe.

H. Slater, Pavo, USA

Once Greenpeace accuses the authors of a report to be "in the pay of the World's biggest oil company," then you can rest assured that the report is factually correct and statistically accurate.

Nothing in the summary of this report is surprising.

Greenpeace's hysterical ad hominem attack simply adds that much more support for the report.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

Green Peace is a glass building throwing stones.

Former co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has been speaking out loudly against the politicized, anti-scientific, radicalization of his former organization.

He currently the enviromental group Greenspirit Strategies.

The basic breakdown in logic (from the Left) comes when they fail to ask the question, "as compared to what?"

Over use of DDT is bad for birds eggs, compared to countless millions of unnecessary human deaths from Malaria when DDT is totally banned(35 years too late, the Left agrees to compromise).

Chlorinated water carries a very small risk of a few deaths per 10 million due to toxicity, but cheaply prevents hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of deaths from cholera and other water born diseases.

Global Warming will put pressure on already hot areas on the planet, but will open up millions of acres of farm land for increased crop production all across the Northern latitudes.

Chris Parker , Seattle, U.S.

It is the policy of the left to attack the source, never the "inconvenient" facts.

Jim, Orange County, USA

All anyone has to do is google "weather related deaths" to see that the assertion of 19,900 wrd's per yr from 2000-06 is false. The year 2004 alone had over 100,000 weather related deaths. Global warming deniers are driven by ideology and greed - so why should truth get in the way ?

longwalksinaris.blogspot.com, chicago, usa

Follow the money trail. The more they exalt global warming, the more money they recieve to explore the lie that it is caused by man. Look at co2 levels during the iceage they were up to 10x higher than today. Man causing climate change...I don't think so.

Bill, ESCONDIDO , CA

Typical lefty blather. The facts say this but BIG OIL BLAH BLAH BLAH.

When all is said and done. all I care about is being at ground zero when that asteroid comes down.


"US out of the UN, UN out of the US"

SquirrelCutter, Garland, TX

hey i just watched another possible oscar tender global warming movie...ice age: the meltdown. watch out al gore and your global warming disciples, there's lots in the movie to dispute your "hypotheses." YIKES!
syc - mt kisco, ny

syc, mount kisco,

Greenpeace frequently reacts to those disagreeing with that organization exactly like the Communists of old. If Greenpeace disagrees with a position, why not attempt to logically refute the arguments? Rather, Greenpeace too often attacks and smears Shame!.

Chase, Williamsburg, USA/Virginia

In the 1920s there were no weather tracking satellites weather-monitoring buoys or weather balloons so people got caught with their pants down when a hurricane, typhoon or cyclone suddenly burst in on them. Also, today's building are built to higher standards to withstand storms.

Mark Caplan, Charlotte, North Carolina - USA

The story says, correctly, that the report claims to show “that a central plank in the global warming argument – that it will result in a big increase in deaths from weather-related disasters – is undermined by the facts.” But the report itself shows that it doesn’t show very much of anything.

The report does show a dramatic decrease in weather-related deaths worldwide, comparing the periods 1900-1989 and 1990-2006. But the biggest change by far was the reduction in deaths from drought, from 57.99 deaths per year per million people to 0.03. The next biggest change was the reduction in deaths by flood, from 31.95 to 1.29. Those numbers are hardly surprising given worldwide society’s increasing sophistication between 1900 and 2006.

But the drought and flood numbers are suspect in that they compare 16 years to 89 years. The study shows that there were a whopping 235 deaths per year per million people from drought in the 1920s and 147 in the 1940s. For some other decades, and for 1990-2006, the numbers were negligible. The 1930s was a bad one for flood-related deaths, at 204 deaths per year per million people. In the 1950s, the rate was 70. For all other decades, the rate was negligible.

Bob Beal, Edmonton, Canada

Once Greenpeace accuses the authors of a report to be "in the pay of the World's biggest oil company," then you can rest assured that the report is factually correct and statistically accurate.

Nothing in the summary of this report is surprising.

Greenpeace's hysterical endorsement just adds support for the work that much more.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

The truth hurts Global Warming so Greenpeace is unhappy that someone is publishing the truth.

Of course Greenpeace gets its' money from fear of global warming so should we trust them?

Dennis, Caney, USA

"one of the warmest and quietest Novembers in the weather records" ...Shurely some mishtake?
I've only known about 40 Novembers but I wouldn't have put this one in the top 30. You know one of the saddest aspects of the environmental militants' infiltration of meteorology is that the weather forecast/record has become so unreliable one is reduced to looking out the window and guessing.

Paul, Ongar, UK

1920 = few early warning systems, poorer communications, buildings not designed for performance in storms, medicine not as good, emergency services not so refined. It's pretty simple math. Just because more cancer is diagnosed now than in 1920, doesn't mean there's necerssarily more cancer - it just means we're better at diagnosing it!

Sarah, London, UK

Yes lets compare to a time when you used to get your head drilled with holes for headaches.

It is probably all lies from people who have a vested interest in us not consuming oil like er........... windfarmers.

Ken E Ken, london,

There are many reasons weather-related deaths could be declining, such as improved warning systems, better building codes and improved emergency services.

These all relate to a higher standard of living and better technology, both of which are significantly better than in 1920. That is all this study measures.

Robin, Sedona, Arizona, USA

Do not confuse global warming zealots with facts or the truth. We must simply accept that cow farts are shortening the life of the universe.

Jami Simmons, Dayton, Ohio, USA

This article attempts to debunk the liberal, tree-huggers conspiracy about global warming; and it does so superbly. This is proof that global warming is a lie made up by liberal tree-huggers. I don't know one single scientist that believes in global warming, therefore it's not real. It was probably made up by terrorists in an attempt to quell our consumption of oil and coal and hence slow our economy down, so the terrorists can take over (cause that's what they really want. They want to take over the world just like the communists did)

Andrew Duncan, Godalming,

Greenpeace clearly has an agenda when they attack straightforward statistics. The question we all should be asking about global climate change is "Should we invest enormous sums of money in mitigating a problem whose costs in life and property have thus far been much less than forecast?"

I'm sure that Greenpeace and their allies will respond with something like "Any loss of life and property is too much whatsoever." But is it really? By way of analogy, if it is going to cost $1 million to fix a pothole in the road, wouldn't it be cheaper just to move the road? If some obscure Pacific atoll with 20 inhabitants is at risk from rising sea levels, should we expend thousands of trillions of dollars to lower the sea level, or simply spend $500,000 to move the inhabitants?

Might we have some common sense here?

Patrick C., Irvine, CA

Global warming is junk science. No one listens to the scientists who keep stating over and over that the biggest influence on temperatures is that big bright glowing ball in the sky. Yes. The sun! It goes through cycles and changes just like the earth naturally goes through cycles of heat and cold. One human lifetime or even ten is not enough to determine a massive long term trend. What it does do is allow government, and particularly those more socialist elements, more power over their citizens and their day to day lives. That's what Global Warming is all about. Not cooling the earth but accruing political power over others with a false premise.

Mark , Raleigh, USA NC

How many people really believe that the weather instuments were accurate enough 100 years ago to register the so called one degree differance since then. I remember those little sheds beside the radio stations with the latuce work where they kept their instruments. Come on think, it's a huge hoax to employ people with not enough to do and raise funds from the clueless. Thirty years ago it was the cooling of the planet. Sure it has been warming up for the last 12 thousand years that was the last ice age. What was the reason for that warming, maybe distance from the sun???

pat, coeur d alene, id

Wasn't it Chicken Little who said" the sky is falling!!!"

Perhaps Al the goracal has got this one wrong too... SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE.

When will this global warming nonsense cease...

The weather prognostigators cannot get a three day forecast right much less a month. HOW IN BLUE BLAZES CAN THEY POSSIBLY FORSEE 100 years...

Ron B, mpls, usa

wordkyle, Lubbock, Texas USA

Good one - agree with you entirely.

Greenpeace should stick to saving whales.

Prav, London,

As with all the scare stories from IPCC Climate Models, the facts are somewhat different, although even they admit that there was no acceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century. However we still hear the cry, "catastrophic damage from rising sea levels as the climate warms".

Greenpeace are embedded in the IPCC process as are WWF. Both have their own advocacy scientists in climate change institutes. FoE interact closely with agencies such as the Tyndall centre. Between them all they are helping to push the agenda, so they have to rubbish anything that challenges the GW mantra.

DennisA, New Quay, UK

I wonder if Soros is supporting Greenpeace.

Maggie, Kansas City, USA MO

Please do not ever say anything against global warming. I plan on making a lot of money on this scam. Dont shut us out of a piece of the pie after AL Gore already has his $100,000,000

humbert, san francisco, us

Al Gore made one absolutely true statement in his award winning powerpoint presentation "An Inconvient Truth", He said "I am not a scientist". A truer statement has never been made.

Glenn Schuster, Jacksonville, Florida

This article must have made some strange assumptions. The 2004 tsunami along the coast of the Indian Ocean killed 283,100 people in that one set of events; the european heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000 people, along with other smaller events all throughout. Not included I expect in 'natural disaster deaths' are deaths due to starvation from drought, salinization, or desertification, all increasing by the warming climate. Just because they are more drawn out doesn't mean that they aren't important! I wish this author explained better where he got his numbers - they just don't seem possible, unless he only means the US or something, but even then, it should be written.

K StJ, Waterloo, Canada

The LEFT always says that these guys are in the pocket of "BIG OIL" Whenever a report comes out contradicting their view of "GLOBAL WARMING."

Whose Pocket is Green Peace in? Its the pocket of World Socailism--where the Masses do without and the "Leaders" get Private Jet Airplanes and summer homes.

k, houston, USA

"... Greenpeace attacked the International Policy Network, one of the Civil Society organisations, which is publishing the report in Britain.

“The International Policy Network is known for being in the pay of the world’s biggest oil company,” a spokesman said. ..."

There must be some credibility in this report. Why else would Greenpeace raise this stupid argument for the umpteenth time? Does everyone that does not belong to Greenpeace work for an oil company?

Reality Check, Angier, NC U.S.A.

Given a choice of A or B, there's always a C to be explored. However, we "mere primates, first cousins to chimps" invented the nuclear bomb.

Robert, Pensacola , Fl/Usa

Worse yet, why should we trust Greenpeace's research over those "funded by oil"?

Wouldn't it be biased equally (so as to increase donations)?

Funding has nothing to do with science, which will rise and fall on its own merits. Of course you can't tell the Gender Studies majors that work for Greenpeace anything of the sort.
They wouldn't know the scientific method if it...

John, Omaha,

Articles like this don't matter to zealots of the "global warming" religion. To them, the facts don't matter and never will. One day they'll wake up, smell the roses and realize they have been made fools of. Then they'll be off to the next "hot thing" designed to destroy Western civilization. As the US suffers through unusually cold early Dec weather with a lot more to come, I for one would yearn for REAL global warming, not just the promise of it from our eco-nuts.

Dennis Kelly, New Carlisle, OH/USA

Dennis Kelly, New Carlisle, Ohio

Please notice that Greenpeace does not disput the assertions.

Mickey Campagna, Alexandria, VA/USA

How typical of Greenpeace - if you have no defense for the message, attack the messenger.

Bob Devlin, Baltimore, USA/Maryland

1. How long has mankind lived on the earth?
2. How many years have we got recorded weather and temperature data for?
3. How many periods of heating and cooling have there been over those many years?

Why do we think there is something occurring now that hasn't occurred before in history?

Doesn't sound like good "science" to me.

Ron Van Nostrand, Haw River, NC

The UN is exaggerating? Wow, didn't they admit to exaggerating about HIV/Aids rates?

Betty Chambers, Mercerville, NJ, USA

Re Greenpeace's response to the report: "The International Policy Network is known for being in the pay of the world’s biggest oil company,” a spokesman said."

Note how there is no argument about the accuracy of the claims, only an attack on the character of the researchers. I daresay that none of the "manmade global warming" advocates work for free. Their funding comes from governments and politicians who wish to make climate science a political issue.

wordkyle, Lubbock, Texas USA

Weather fair or foul is due to global warming.

Mac, Vancouver,

So Greenpeace's response is to say nothing about the content of the report, just smear the people producing it... that's modern climate "science" for you.

Damian, London, UK

How vain we must be to suppose that we, mere primates, first cousins to chimps, could really impact this planet. Mother Nature, Volcanoes and Asteriods have done far more then we ever could.

John Benischek, Davenport, Iowa/ USA