Home > Community Lounge > Politics > Record low tornado activity

Record low tornado activity

  1. I read that flooding is down, hurricanes are down, tornados are down.

    The AGW alarmists just can't catch a break! :D
     
  2. You ran out of rye whiskey?
     
  3. Good one, I didn't really catch it the first time.
     
  4. There was never any widespread predictions of more tornadoes. Stronger and more pronounced weather events both hot and cold, dry and wet, but not more tornadoes.

    You guys should really try to learn a little about the facts before spouting the typical denier bullshit. It's laughable.
     
  5. You stupid AGW alarmists blame everything on nonexistent global warming. It's too hot, its too cold, its too wet, its too dry, its too snowy, its to windy, its too calm, its too dusty, its too clear, its too cloudy, etc. etc.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-how-global-warming-causes-wild-winds/241639/
     
  6. What a dumb ass. Take out your urban measuring stations dumbass.

    <img src=http://www.climate4you.com/images/DifferenceAnomalies%20AverageSurfaceTemp-averageSatelliteTemp%20GlobalMonthlySince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif width=440 height=240>

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WMqc7PCJ-nc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
  7. OK, let's take out the urban stations

    [​IMG]


    Oh, and BTW, note......your "pause in warming since 98"?
     
  8. pardon but what exactly do you think causes tornadoes, temper tantrums of nymphs perhaps?

    Now if you're predicting uniform warming then of course your are right about the tornadoes except for that prerequisite is EXACTLY WRONG according to observed reality.
     
  9. So there's the ocean temperature chart. I figured the heat had to be going somewhere, unless the physical properties of the CO2 molecule had changed.
     
  10. You don't even have a clue how all that data is collected and combined. You make statements without even looking into how things are computed and possibly manipulated.

    If you had any intelligence maybe a light would go on in your mind when reading the links I've presented to you and you would say, "yes, I see."

    But, no. You are too ignorant and just come back with blanket ignorant statements like you made last night, "no, I'm right."

    LOL Your AGW tail is wagging your dog face. :D
     
  11. The problem is that- as demostrated by the East Anglia emails - the data that is collected is deliberately manipulated. Information that does not agree with the previous agreed-upon 'concenus' is deleted, not used, or changed in value.

    Never do climate change promoters use the entire data set without manipulation. The classic example is taking station readings representing 2% of the Antarctic land mass and ignoring data from the other 98% while trying to make a case that the ice is melting in the Southern Hemisphere.
     

  12. No the denier bullshit you reference is manipulated data and fraudulent info. There is no fraudulent manipulation of data at NOAA or NASA or any of the other main climatology sources.

    You are simply wrong and deluded by right wing denier propaganda. To say that virtually the entire world's science community has been manipulating data and/or are wrong is simply nuts.

    But the Koch bros love you guys.
     

  13. Why can't these other knuckleheads understand that? It's like they look right past the most obvious because it is counter to their ideology.
     
  14. Hey, Bevis. Butthead doesn't have a clue what he is talking about either.

    Stop being such a political hack. Your only interest is to tow the Al Gore lies. You are really stupid. You know that?