Who cares?

Well, clearly you do, though I do question your understanding. Let's take your previous comment, for example.

"Substitute the words 'god exists' for the sentence you have in italics. I would argue that there's a lot more empirical evidence to support climate change. But then again, how would you know what you don't know unless someone educates you to the fact that you don't know? And boy, do you not know."

So as to be clear, you suggest I replace:

"Global warming, which is mainly caused by humans, is causing an increase in natural disasters worldwide."

with

"God exists."

and then go on to assert "that there's a lot more empirical evidence to support climate change" than, I presume, God?

Well, with due apologies to those of faith, I entirely agree. Climate changes, I have never claimed otherwise. What I do challenge, though, is the proposition from Jazh (in a separate and now deleted post) that global warming is primarily anthropogenic and that there has been an increasing number of natural disasters as a result. Accordingly you have, (whether by design or ignorance), attempted to refute an argument I have not made and implied I deny something which I don't. Clearly you have, as the definition goes, attacked a strawman...

"A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."

So now that we're singing from the same hymn sheet, would you care to take up the challenge presented by Jazh and offer evidence in support of his(?) assertions?