Could global warming change tornado season, too?

Mar 15, 2013 by Seth Borenstein
This May 24, 2011 file photo shows the path of a powerful tornado through Joplin, Mo. In 2011, the United States saw one of the busiest tornado seasons in generations: Nearly 1,700 tornadoes that killed 553 people. With the planet heating up, many scientists seem fairly certain some weather elements like hurricanes and droughts will worsen. But as the traditional season nears, scientists are still trying to figure out if there be more or fewer tornadoes as global warming increases. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

With the planet heating up, many scientists seem fairly certain some weather elements like hurricanes and droughts will worsen. But tornadoes have them stumped.

These unpredictable, sometimes plague the United States more than any other country. Here in , Oklahoma City has been hit with at least 147 tornadoes since 1890.

But as the traditional tornado season nears, scientists have been pondering a simple question: Will there be more or fewer twisters as global warming increases?

There is no easy answer. Lately, in America has been Jekyll-and-Hyde weird, and scientists are unsure if has played a role in recent erratic patterns.

In 2011, the United States saw its second-deadliest tornado season in history: Nearly 1,700 tornadoes killed 553 people. The Joplin, Missouri, twister was the single deadliest in American history, killing 158 people and causing $2.8 billion in damage.

The following year, 2012, started even earlier and even busier. Through April there were twice as many tornadoes as normal. Then the twisters suddenly disappeared. Tornado activity from May to August of that year was the lowest in 60 years of record-keeping, said Harold Brooks, a top researcher at the National Weather Center.

Meanwhile, Canada saw an unusual number of tornadoes in 2012; Saskatchewan had three times the normal number.

In this May 22, 2011 file photo, emergency personnel walk through a severely damaged neighborhood after a tornado hit Joplin, Mo. In 2011 the United States saw one of the busiest tornado seasons in generations: Nearly 1,700 tornadoes that killed 553 people. With the planet heating up, many scientists seem fairly certain some weather elements like hurricanes and droughts will worsen. But as the traditional season nears, scientists are still trying to figure out if there be more or fewer tornadoes as global warming increases. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

That year, the jet stream moved north and "essentially shut down" tornadoes in the American Midwest said Greg Carbin, warning meteorologist at the federal storm center. A tremendous drought meant far fewer storms, which not only shut off the spigot on rain but on storm cells that spawned tornadoes.

For much of America, tornadoes are seasonal. Typically, there are more during spring, and the numbers dwindle in the worst heat of the summer. Last year "essentially was an extended period of summertime conditions over the U.S.," Carbin said. "The real question is: What is spring now? Is it February?"

"Summer may be happening earlier and may be muscling out what we consider a transition between summer and winter," he said.

The last two seasons aren't alone in illustrating extremes in tornado activity.

Tornado record-keepers tally things like the most and least tornadoes in a month. Records for that category have been set 24 times over the past 60 years. Ten of those records have been set in the past decade—six for the fewest tornadoes and four for the most, Brooks said. Also, the three earliest starts of and the four latest have all occurred since 1997, he said.

What does that mean?

"We've had a dramatic increase in the variability of tornado occurrence," Brooks said.

The jet stream, a major player in tornado formation, has been in a state of flux, varying wildly in recent years, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann.

"It's hard to predict future tornado seasons when we don't understand current tornado seasons," Brooks said between sessions at the National Tornado Summit here earlier this week. "We're not sure what's going to happen with the tornado numbers."

In this May 24, 2011 file photo, a half-mile-wide tornado moves towards Piedmont, Okla. In 2011 the United States saw one of the busiest tornado seasons in generations: Nearly 1,700 tornadoes that killed 553 people. With the planet heating up, many scientists seem fairly certain some weather elements like hurricanes and droughts will worsen. But as the traditional season nears, scientists are still trying to figure out if there be more or fewer tornadoes as global warming increases. (AP Photo/The Oklahoman, Paul Southerland)

A new study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society looks at all sorts of extreme weather, how it is changing because of global warming and how things are predicted to change in the future. The study says tornadoes and the severe thunderstorms that spawn them are the hardest to predict.

Public opinion polls show Americans blame global warming for bad tornado outbreaks, but climate scientists say that's not quite right.

One reason scientists can't figure out how might affect tornadoes is that twisters are usually small weather events that aren't easily simulated in large computer models. And records of tornadoes may not have been accurate over the years as twisters twirled unnoticed around unpopulated areas.

So Brooks and others are looking at the ingredients that cause tornadoes. But even that isn't simple. They look at two main factors: moist energy in the atmosphere and . Wind shear is the difference between wind at high altitudes and wind near the surface. The more moist energy and greater the wind shear, the better the chances for tornadoes.

The atmosphere can hold more moisture as it warms, and it will likely be more unstable so that means more moist energy, several experts said. But wind shear is another matter. Brooks and Stanford University scientist Noah Diffenbaugh think there will be less of that.

That would suggest fewer tornadoes. But if there's more moist energy, that could lead to more tornadoes. One ingredient has to win out, and Brooks says it's hard to tell which one will. Diffenbaugh says recent computer simulations show the moist energy may overcome the reduced shear and produce at least more severe thunderstorms, if not tornadoes.

Given what's happening lately, Brooks believes there will be fewer days of but more twisters on the days when they occur.

Explore further: Wave energy impact on harbour operations investigated

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

No link between tornadoes and climate change: US

May 23, 2011

The United States is experiencing the deadliest year for tornadoes in nearly six decades, but a top US weather expert said Monday there is no link between the violent twisters and climate change.

Repeat deadly storms 'unusual but not unknown'

May 24, 2011

(AP) -- Weather experts said it's unusual for deadly tornadoes to develop a few weeks apart in the U.S. But what made the two storm systems that barreled through a Missouri city and the South within the last ...

Recommended for you

Image: Towing the Costa Concordia

3 hours ago

This Sentinel-1A image was acquired on 26 July 2014 over the coast of northwestern Italy while the Costa Concordia cruise ship (enlarged) was being towed towards the city of Genoa.

User comments : 157

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
1.9 / 5 (36) Mar 15, 2013
So the global stagnation of temperature change is causing a higher variability in the occurrence of tornadoes.

The western economies are going bankrupt yet the governments are still funding this sort of nonsense or nonscience if you prefer.

You are living in your mothers basement because of the progressive movement and it's waste of intellectual and economic resources.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (34) Mar 15, 2013
Money quote: "scientists are still trying to figure out if there be more or fewer tornadoes as global warming increases."

Boring! Here's the real data, showing that headlines about extreme weather and the cover of jet-skiing tobacco farmer Gore's book are BOGUS alarmism, utterly disconnected from real trends which are the *opposite* of headline claims in this age of passive voters following psychopathic lawyers-turned-politicians of both major parties:

http://climatesan...rgy1.png

At least the anti-science instincts of conservatives have put the breaks on this insanity, for now.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (35) Mar 15, 2013
"At least the anti-science instincts of conservatives have put the breaks on this insanity, for now."

Conservatives are anti the AGW Armageddon hoax NOT anti-science. Most likely, human CO2 releases cause some warming but not enough to ruin our whole economic system over.
sstritt
2.1 / 5 (34) Mar 15, 2013
2013 is the year the alarmists finally "jump the shark"
http://climateaud...-thesis/
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (35) Mar 15, 2013
The true disaster here, is that none of these Alarmists will be held accountable for their deceit, and they know it.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (28) Mar 15, 2013
"The Joplin, Missouri, twister was the single deadliest in American history, killing 158 people ... "

No.

"The Great Tri-State Tornado of Wednesday, March 18, 1925, was the deadliest tornado in U.S. history. Inflicting 695 fatalities, the tornado killed more than twice as many as the second deadliest, the 1840 Great Natchez Tornado. "

http://en.wikiped..._Tornado
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (31) Mar 15, 2013
When a "top researcher at the National Weather Center" claims "It's hard to predict future tornado seasons when we don't understand current tornado seasons", then why waste time and money on a study that will produce no tangible benefit?

Only idiots wonder why climate change "science" is disbelieved.
lengould100
2.5 / 5 (17) Mar 15, 2013
At least the anti-science instincts of conservatives have put the breaks on this insanity, for now.
NickfromNYC. Umm, that would be "brakes" not "breaks".

So we're supposed to trust your science opinions when you haven't even learned spelling or grammar yet. LOL.
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (29) Mar 15, 2013
Add the word "extreme" to the growing list of adjective buzz-words the liberals are over-using.

Off the top of my head, that list includes the words greed, hate, racist, racism, denialist, and dis-believer. The definition of these words are somewhat slippery, but all are designed and used in order to conjure-up negative emotions.

Howhot
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 16, 2013
You are living in your mothers basement because of the progressive movement and it's waste of intellectual and economic resources

Yeah, sounds exactly like typical republican crap. These people are of the lowest of creatures and will say anything to pull the Bull shit over your eyes. A democrat is pro-economy pro-people pro-family pro-smallbusiness pro-little-guy. You dick-weed butt-clamp republicans are the problem. The only thing wrong in the US is you. Obama is going to rip your hind-quarters doing his best why you twits kill the american dream.

So here is the result of a tea party, http://cdn.physor...balw.jpg

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (26) Mar 16, 2013
With the planet heating up...
Typical. First thing out of the box, this article starts with a false premise:

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

Howhot
3.5 / 5 (16) Mar 16, 2013
And of course ubavontuba has his typical stone for brains reply.

What your not seeing ub is that, yes, the planet is really heating up. It's not fiction. The challenge for you is to logically explain why it is heating up. Either that or classify yourself as a fool man.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (25) Mar 16, 2013
"The Joplin, Missouri, twister was the single deadliest in American history, killing 158 people ... "

No.

"The Great Tri-State Tornado of Wednesday, March 18, 1925, was the deadliest tornado in U.S. history. Inflicting 695 fatalities, the tornado killed more than twice as many as the second deadliest, the 1840 Great Natchez Tornado. "

http://en.wikiped..._Tornado
Excellent point.

The writer of this article (Seth Borenstein) appears both ignorant and delirious.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (29) Mar 16, 2013
And of course ubavontuba has his typical stone for brains reply.

What your not seeing ub is that, yes, the planet is really heating up. It's not fiction. The challenge for you is to logically explain why it is heating up. Either that or classify yourself as a fool man.
So how would I "logically" explain an observed fallacy? Should I also claim gravity works by stating things which fall are really just rising?

To "claim" it's heating up when it clearly isn't, is the lie. To "believe" it's heating up when it really isn't is to be self-deluded. So which are you? ...the liar, or the fool?

Howhot
3.3 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2013
@NikFromNYC says
At least the anti-science instincts of conservatives have put the breaks on this insanity, for now.

Well considering I've never met a conservative that even has 1/4 of a brain, your perception insanity is dubious.

What is insane is your tea-party bashing of us NErdS. You should kiss your mama that NErdS made your iPad and everything i based.
You should kiss the ground we NErdS walk on.

And you claim our technology, our science is somehow wrong? Are daffy man?
alfie_null
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2013
"At least the anti-science instincts of conservatives have put the breaks on this insanity, for now."

Conservatives are anti the AGW Armageddon hoax NOT anti-science. Most likely, human CO2 releases cause some warming but not enough to ruin our whole economic system over.

Go back not too long ago on this site and you'll find virulent polemics against the very idea of climate change in any form. Following that it was anthropogenic climate change. Now it seems to be the idea that climate change will be sufficient to cause economic problems.

They're fighting a rear-guard action against any knowledge that comes from scientific work if that knowledge threatens business interests.
Egleton
3 / 5 (24) Mar 16, 2013
Do you notice how effective the anti-GHW lobby is?
The conversation is leaving them behind in the dust.
Just like the pro-tobacco lobby was left in the dust.
They are the walking dead.Zombies.
Chat among yourselves fellas.
MR166
2 / 5 (27) Mar 16, 2013
I am not about to believe the charlatans pumping this AGW fraud. The earth is not nearly as hot as it was in the recent past.

http://junkscienc...ebunked/

18K years ago the North American glaciers were 1 mile thick. Climate change is NORMAL.
MR166
2 / 5 (28) Mar 16, 2013
People like Sorros and Gore are playing all of you tree huggers like a fine violin! They have used your votes to gain government subsidies for unfeasible projects and have profited greatly from the bankrupt companies. YOU pay more for all energy and food, and have fewer job opportunities due to these regulations. Hydroelectric power is not even considered a renewable source of energy by the US government. THAT shows who really controls the strings of this puppet economy.
sstritt
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 16, 2013
Meanwhile China has 1000 scientists at work perfecting Thorium reactor technology using our 50 year old research paid for by our grandparents' tax dollars!
Shootist
2.1 / 5 (25) Mar 16, 2013
"Global warming™"

Is there anything it cannot do?
sstritt
2 / 5 (25) Mar 16, 2013
"Global warming™"

It's what plants crave!
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (16) Mar 16, 2013
Typical. First thing out of the box, this article starts with a false premise:


Typical, first thing out of his mouth is a denial of the obvious and an intimation of conspiracy.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2013
They're fighting a rear-guard action against any knowledge that comes from scientific work if that knowledge threatens business interests.


Excellent insight! I would only add that they are also fighting against some dubious, nebulous conspiracy that only exists in their minds.

Like one trying to claim that "extreme weather events" is somehow a new term. Isn't it amazing that predictions of "more extreme weather events" have been made since the bloody 50's as it relates to the reason why global warming may be a problem. yet suddenly some bozo decides the word "extreme " is something new.

And these conspiracists wonder why he bulk of people think they are paranoid crazies.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 16, 2013
Climate change is NORMAL.


And more of the deluded misrepresentation that is the mantra chanted by the tiny cadre of lunatic fringe left over from the lost era of climate change denial.

Better close up that bunker there lunatic, the Zeta-Reticulans are looking for you!
icuvd
1.8 / 5 (21) Mar 16, 2013
Typical. First thing out of the box, this article starts with a false premise:


Typical, first thing out of his mouth is a denial of the obvious and an intimation of conspiracy.

Perhaps you can explain this?
http://wattsupwit...e-there/
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2013
Perhaps you can explain this?


Sure. Its a site put out by a climate change denialist who uses it to seek donations from gullible people. He uses misrepresentations of science, cherry-picked data and claims of some nebulous conspiracy to promote the idea that everyone (except those few enlightened souls that contribute to him) are conspiring togeather to steal your freedoms in some over arching, Orwillian plan to do something bad to you.
icuvd
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 16, 2013
I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I do believe in the inertia of bad ideas. AGW is on its last legs as demonstrated by this latest pathetic attempt at a new hockey stick which has been debunked in a matter of days! As a previous post observed, we have just witnessed the alarmists "jump the shark" for those of us old enough to get the reference.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Mar 16, 2013
we have just witnessed the alarmists "jump the shark" for those of us old enough to get the reference.
You just had to say it that way. Now I feel old ...so old...

With my bones creaking, I put out my thumbs and say, "Aaaaeeeyyy!"

LOL
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 16, 2013
I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I do believe in the inertia of bad ideas. AGW is on its last legs as demonstrated by this latest pathetic attempt at a new hockey stick which has been debunked in a matter of days! As a previous post observed, we have just witnessed the alarmists "jump the shark" for those of us old enough to get the reference.


How quaint! A mix of "good ol boy" humour, a denial of a belief in a conspiracy followed immediately by an allegation of a conspiracy, and a gentle suggestion of age related experience in a not very subtle attempt to authoritize his opinion.

Do you remember the show the phrase "jumping the shark" came from? (I do.) Do you remember which character is was? (I do.) Do you remember the movie the show was based on? (I do.) Does that mean I have a more authoritative opinion than you?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2013
I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I do believe in the inertia of bad ideas. AGW is on its last legs as demonstrated by this latest pathetic attempt at a new hockey stick which has been debunked in a matter of days! As a previous post observed, we have just witnessed the alarmists "jump the shark" for those of us old enough to get the reference.
How quaint! A mix of "good ol boy" humour, a denial of a belief in a conspiracy followed immediately by an allegation of a conspiracy, and a gentle suggestion of age related experience in a not very subtle attempt to authoritize his opinion.

Do you remember the show the phrase "jumping the shark" came from? (I do.) Do you remember which character is was? (I do.) Do you remember the movie the show was based on? (I do.) Does that mean I have a more authoritative opinion than you?
And again, Maggnus does everything he can to lead the discussion away from the science.

The perfidy exemplified by Maggnus knows no bounds.

julianpenrod
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2013
In fact, all climate change is the result of chemtrails. It started around 1950 when tornado numbers left the constant 180 a year and is first recorded in 1997 because that was the year the air became so saturated that any new chemical visibly condensed out. It is at best patently outrageous to suggest that 1500 or more tornadoes a year went unobserved all those years! Among other things, the population only rose by 200%, but the number of tornadoes is up at least 700%. Also, when a tornado passes through an area, it leaves destruction and debris! Even if you don't see the tornado, you still see the damage it left and can conclude from that that a tornado went through. And, consider, technology today is little different from around 1990, but the numbers are still much large than they were then! It's not better technology or larger population, the number of tornadoes is increasing, because of atmosphere doping with weather control chemicals.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 16, 2013
And again, Maggnus does everything he can to lead the discussion away from the science.


Oh, this would be the same sciene you have claimed over and over is faked and done by scientists who have been bought off or subscribe to a conspiracy to hide the truth in a directed effort to cause some bad thing to happen?

Note the lack of consistancy in your attempts at obfustication? Debating the science with you is akin to debating gun control laws with a deranged lunatic holding a gun.

Laughingly, predictably obtuse.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2013
Thats great, along comes the idiot who thinks the moon landing was faked, outlining why contrails are causing tornadoes. Well candrive will probably believe you, if you put some pretty graphics in a website and claim you''re being repressed. Then Zephyr will come along and explain how this was all predicted by aether. Then vacuum-idiot will drop by and tell you how it can be explained by his aether-based idea and leave his website address. Then some other idiot will chime in that you are all wrong, and he has discovered the means by which gravity fails.

And uba will believe it.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Mar 16, 2013
And again, Maggnus does everything he can to lead the discussion away from the science.
Oh, this would be the same sciene you have claimed over and over is faked and done by scientists who have been bought off or subscribe to a conspiracy to hide the truth in a directed effort to cause some bad thing to happen?
When have I done that? I've only claimed the Chicken Little alarmism is false.

The actual, observed science shows no global warming for an extended period of time now, and shows what warming we've had to be beneficial.

Note the lack of consistancy in your attempts at obfustication? Debating the science with you is akin to debating gun control laws with a deranged lunatic holding a gun.
And again, Maggnus desires to lead the discussion away from the science. Why is that?

Laughingly, predictably obtuse.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 16, 2013
And uba will believe it.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

Maggnus = loser.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2013
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." Benjamin Franklin
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2013
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." Benjamin Franklin
So why are you avoiding a discussion of the science? What is it you are so unwilling to learn?
Maggnus
3 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2013
So why are you avoiding a discussion of the science? What is it you are so unwilling to learn?


You misdirect and obfusticate. You don't want to discuss the science, you want to promote your particular bent on the conspiracy. You hope to "score" in some imaginary game you think you can "win". I have no need to point out the obvious, other than to denigrate the actions of a smaller and smaller minority of conspiracy promoters, and I especially will not do so, so you can have a forum in which to pontificate on your particularly obtuse version of that imaginary conspiracy.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Mar 16, 2013
You misdirect and obfusticate.
Obviously, this is your shtick.

You don't want to discuss the science,
I'm not afraid. Why are you?

you want to promote your particular bent on the conspiracy.
I generally don't believe in conspiracies. Maybe the problem is you think I'm part of a conspiracy?

You hope to "score" in some imaginary game you think you can "win".
I hope to bring to light an obviously intelligent, but willfully ignorant mind.

I have no need to point out the obvious, other than to denigrate the actions of a smaller and smaller minority of conspiracy promoters, and I especially will not do so, so you can have a forum in which to pontificate on your particularly obtuse version of that imaginary conspiracy.
This just serves to exemplify you're willful avoidance of the science.

What is it you are so unwilling to learn?

Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2013
You misdirect and obfusticate.


Uba replies: Do not, you do!

You don't want to discuss the science,


Uba replies: Am not, you are.

you want to promote your particular bent on the conspiracy.


uba replies: Am not, you are

You hope to "score" in some imaginary game you think you can "win".


uba replies: Listen to me, for I am right!

I have no need to point out the obvious, other than to denigrate the actions of a smaller and smaller minority of conspiracy promoters, and I especially will not do so, so you can have a forum in which to pontificate on your particularly obtuse version of that imaginary conspiracy.


Uba replies: Do not, you do.

What is it you are so unwilling to learn?


School ground bullying tactics.


ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 16, 2013
School ground bullying tactics.
Says the one slinging insults like they're flapjacks at a southern picnic!

Why are you avoiding the science? What is it you are so unwilling to learn?

Whydening Gyre
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2013
Looks like it's time to recalibrate our weather measuring system "clocks".
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2013
Why are you avoiding the science? What is it you are so unwilling to learn?


Wow, ok I'll type really slow so you can get it. It is not that I am unwilling to discuss the science. I am unwilling to discuss much of anything, but especially the science, with you, given your proven track record of misdirection, misrepresentation and obfustication.

What I am so unwilling to learn is the school yard bullying tactics you employ.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 16, 2013
Why are you avoiding the science? What is it you are so unwilling to learn?


Wow, ok I'll type really slow so you can get it. It is not that I am unwilling to discuss the science. I am unwilling to discuss much of anything, but especially the science, with you, given your proven track record of misdirection, misrepresentation and obfustication.
So what you mean is, your belief in AGW is more important to you than the truth of it.

What I am so unwilling to learn is the school yard bullying tactics you employ.
It appears the bully here, is you!

Do you even read your own posts? What have I written to you that's anywhere near as mean spirited as what you have written to and about me?

MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 16, 2013
Science fraud up 10x since 1975!

http://www.pnas.o...12247109
ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 16, 2013
Whenever a lame-azzed study like this shows up on physorg, only a few of the alarmists show up to post, and then only to bash the sensible amongst us.

Most alarmists shy away from these ridiculously-stupid studies, as there is no justification for the study in the first place - defending the study would only make them look foolish.

Magnus, on the other hand, is a paid shill. His job is to say *something*, even if it's gibberish. Generally, all he can do is bad-mouth the AGW fraud deniers.

Like most of the AGW worshippers, he's as fake as a 3-dollar bill.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2013
MP166 says
I am not about to believe the charlatans pumping this AGW fraud
. That is because you are stupid.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2013
ScooterG says
Whenever a lame-azzed study like this shows up on physorg, only a few of the alarmists show up to post, and then only to bash the senhsible amongst us.

That's because they are not "lame-azzed" articles. The only thing Lame-assed has been your comments on the f-ing subject. You deniers try so hard to push your false environmental 'want to be science' it's sick. The funny joke is, you don't have any science that supports your arguments. You and your deniers class are the 3 dollar bills.

deepsand
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I do believe in the inertia of bad ideas. AGW is on its last legs as demonstrated by this latest pathetic attempt at a new hockey stick which has been debunked in a matter of days!

Only if you take the word of a former TV weatherman with no valid credentials and his ilk.

Your opinions are worth no more than those of the charlatans that you follow.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
And uba will believe it.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

Maggnus = loser.

This from the puerile idiot who is incapable of informed and rational discussion, one whose knowledge and understanding of Science is virtually non-existent, one whose repertoire is limited to copying and pasting the same worn out cliches countless times, one whose presence here is for him a form of masturbation.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
"Global warming™"

Is there anything it cannot do?

Well, it obviously isn't very good at making you and your ilk any brighter.
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." Benjamin Franklin
So why are you avoiding a discussion of the science? What is it you are so unwilling to learn?

Questions that you should be asking of yourself.
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
Science fraud up 10x since 1975!

Guess that explains the ignorance displayed by you and your ilk.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
This from the puerile idiot who is incapable of informed and rational discussion, one whose knowledge and understanding of Science is virtually non-existent, one whose repertoire is limited to copying and pasting the same worn out cliches countless times, one whose presence here is for him a form of masturbation.
And this from the puerile idiot who thinks a single photon can infinitely increase the energy of a system. LOL.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

deepsand = loser.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
So why are you avoiding a discussion of the science? What is it you are so unwilling to learn?
Questions that you should be asking of yourself.
I'm willing to discuss the science, and I'm willing to learn. So, let's discuss. I'll open:

Science: According to Hadcrut3 data, the world stopped warming as much as 17 years ago.

deepsand
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
This from the puerile idiot who is incapable of informed and rational discussion, one whose knowledge and understanding of Science is virtually non-existent, one whose repertoire is limited to copying and pasting the same worn out cliches countless times, one whose presence here is for him a form of masturbation.
And this from the puerile idiot who thinks a single photon can infinitely increase the energy of a system. LOL.

Your blatant and repetitious lie is plain for all to see.

As is your puerility.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
According to Hadcrut3 data, the world stopped warming as much as 17 years ago.

Yet another and pathetically repeated lie.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2013
This from the puerile idiot who is incapable of informed and rational discussion, one whose knowledge and understanding of Science is virtually non-existent, one whose repertoire is limited to copying and pasting the same worn out cliches countless times, one whose presence here is for him a form of masturbation.
And this from the puerile idiot who thinks a single photon can infinitely increase the energy of a system. LOL.
Your blatant and repetitious lie is plain for all to see.

As is your puerility.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

deepsand = loser.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2013
According to Hadcrut3 data, the world stopped warming as much as 17 years ago.
Yet another and pathetically repeated lie.
If you believe that, prove it.

deepsand
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
This from the puerile idiot who is incapable of informed and rational discussion, one whose knowledge and understanding of Science is virtually non-existent, one whose repertoire is limited to copying and pasting the same worn out cliches countless times, one whose presence here is for him a form of masturbation.
And this from the puerile idiot who thinks a single photon can infinitely increase the energy of a system. LOL.
Your blatant and repetitious lie is plain for all to see.

As is your puerility.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

deepsand = loser.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

deepsand = loser.

deepsand
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
According to Hadcrut3 data, the world stopped warming as much as 17 years ago.
Yet another and pathetically repeated lie.
If you believe that, prove it.

Asked and answered.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
According to Hadcrut3 data, the world stopped warming as much as 17 years ago.
Yet another and pathetically repeated lie.
If you believe that, prove it.
Asked and answered.
You answered with a lie. Try again.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

deepsand = loser.

deepsand
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." ― Socrates

deepsand = loser.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
Reported for POINTLESS VERBIAGE.
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
According to Hadcrut3 data, the world stopped warming as much as 17 years ago.
Yet another and pathetically repeated lie.
If you believe that, prove it.
Asked and answered.
You answered with a lie. Try again.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

deepsand = loser.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
Reported for POINTLESS VERBIAGE.

It appears deepsand has gone off the deep end.
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
Reported for POINTLESS VERBIAGE.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
deepsand
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
Reported for POINTLESS VERBIAGE.

It appears deepsand has gone off the deep end.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2013
So what you mean is, your belief in AGW is more important to you than the truth of it.

No, I said what I meant. To say I "believe" in AGW is as non-sensical as saying that I "believe" in the sun rising. Facts are persistant things.
What have I written to you that's anywhere near as mean spirited as what you have written to and about me?

So now you've added hypocrisy to your repertoire.
Ok uba, because you're being a crybaby (seems to me I've heard that somewhere before) I am going to play your game for a little bit. I doubt very much that it will get very far before you begin claiming once again that all scientists are paid off and blah blah conspiracy blah blah they're out to do bad things blah blah but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt till that starts. so..
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2013
Science: According to Hadcrut3 data, the world stopped warming as much as 17 years ago.


Hadcrut3 data is a poor base to make such an assertion Hardcrut3 fails to take into account the faster and higher temperature rise in both the Artic and Antartic zones. Hadrut4 is better, although it, too, does not capture large areas of either pole.

It is also a poor tactic to use the time period of 16 or 17 years, as the short term data is more a measure of weather, than climate. Extending the data set by even 5 years in either direction changes the slope to show faster warming.

Even ignoring those weaknesses in the data set, the data still shows a rise in temperature over the period claimed, albeit at a lesser pace than predicted in most of the climate models employed by IPCC in their 1st and 2nd reports. This is not all that surprising, however, given the complexities of dealing with a system like Earth's climate.

More recent data has also given explanation to the lower than...
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2013
than predicted temperature rise. At least three things have changed in the data used by IPCC in their prediction models; 1) the sun's output during the most recent solar maximum was at an unexpectedly low level; 2) mid-level global vulcanism added more particulate matter than was anticipated 3) world wide CO2 loading was down due to the global economic downturn and steps by Europe and the US to reduce the amount of CO2 they added during the period in question.

There is also evidence that an extended El Nino event helped keep global heating lower than would otherwise have been expected.

Not withstanding these brakes on global heating, there was still a rise in temperature. To say that it rose less swiftly than expected does not change the fact that a rise is still a rise.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2013
PS Vendicar, howhot, myself and others have told you this before. So why do you still use the exact same graph in such a way as to suggest these weaknesses have not been pointed out to you previously?
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2013
Oh and there's scooter tossing in his wisdom. Well you're right Scooter. You've done it, you've caught me! Where oh where did I slip up? I am paid to argue against the denialists because I am not from this planet. My Reticulan guard is homing in on you, better walk - no RUN - back into your bunker. This is your last warning you weak minded human!
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2013
Whenever a lame-azzed study like this shows up on physorg, only a few of the alarmists show up to post, and then only to bash the sensible amongst us. Most alarmists shy away from these ridiculously-stupid studies....

In my case I post if the science is misrepresented. Being employed by the UKMO for 32 yr, the last 20 as a Forecaster I give myself the privilege. To have black turned to white in response to a statement of basic meteorology requires the patience of Job not to explode in frustration. It is self evident that some are driven by wanting a certain outcome and any science that states otherwise is attacked reflexively. If someone says "don't be absurd" as a reply to the statement of a REALLY basic weather physics process then how does one not respond in kind? However this is a science site, and I will deny ignorance, where my knowledge allows. As for this article it seems to me self evident. Given warming, then there will be regional weather shifts. Tornados included.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2013
Maggnus - it is also important to look at the other indicators of our climate. Oceans continue to rise, ocean temperatures continue to rise, glaciers continue to melt, ice sheets continue to melt. All the data to support these facts is readily available with basic google skills. If you look at the temperature data - there was a 40 year plateau from 1940 to 1980. It is of course cherry picking to select one piece of information - and to imply an argument. Of course the energy in the system is continuing to increase.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2013
Thanks runrig I relate. It is deeply frustrating to be catagorized as a liar and a controlled tool of some faceless entity known as "they" because your training and expertise give you the knowledge to see the antics employed by some of these so-called "deniers". Being a voice against fear and ignorance takes courage, so good on you for making your voice heard.

Yes djr, my little soiree is the tip of the iceberg, given the limitations of the forum. Its part of what makes me laugh about this stupid conspiracy that is the linch-pin of the argument against AGW. Sally Student working dutifully on her masters thesis on hummingbirds notices that their range has moved north, and notes that the newer range could be explained by a warming climate opening new areas the bird can exploit, and she gets cast as a lying paid off schill. Never mind that she lives on her mom's allowance. Never mind that she doesn't even know(or care)there is a fringe still claiming its not real. It makes my blood boil.
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 17, 2013
"In my case I post if the science is misrepresented."

And I (for one) appreciate that.

With every other science subject on physorg, it is often-times more informative for me to read the posts following the article rather than the article itself - except in the case of global warming.

The warmists never have a disparaging word about any article or study, regardless of the accuracy, the intent, the intelligence level, or the $$ resources wasted. Their conspicuous (posting) absence screams shill, fraud, and pure emotion. It throws up red flags everywhere. Obviously, they would rather stay quiet and let the article disappear quickly.

"Given warming, then there will be regional weather shifts."

The same could be said for cooling. Even without any discernable temperature changes, weather patterns will change. They always have, they likely always will.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2013
And there`s Scooter, once again crying out in feigned horror at all them bad Alarmists all working togeather to hide the TRUTH from all us poor blah blah blah blah.

Scooter your bias and misunderstandings are epic. You clearly do not have the capacity to see beyond your own horizon, and you see evidence of conspiracy everywhere. You give example to the very thing you claim to not be doing. Your motives are clear. And predictable. And wrong.
megmaltese
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2013
The answer is: there will be MORE twisters.
Global warming = more heat = more energy = more violent meteo phenomenas.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2013
The warmists never have a disparaging word about any article or study, regardless of the accuracy, the intent, the intelligence level, or the $$ resources wasted.

You raise a fascinating point Scooter. I agree with your observation. Why might that be? Perhaps as someone interested in science - but not a trained and working scientist - I am very careful with my willingness to accuse someone of fraud. I don't feel I have the expertise or right to level such a charge. Many on the other side of the issue have no problem in attacking every single article - with their advanced understanding. What are the chances that every piece of scientific research on the subject of global warming is a fraud? Do you see why it is frustrating for those of us concerned about the world we are leaving to our children and grand children?
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 17, 2013
And there`s Scooter, once again...

Scooter your bias and misunderstandings are epic. You clearly do not have the capacity to see beyond your own horizon, and you see evidence of conspiracy everywhere. You give example to the very thing you claim to not be doing. Your motives are clear. And predictable. And wrong.


And there's "Magnus, the lock-step liberal". You claim "You give example to the very thing you claim to not be doing. Your motives are clear. And predictable. And wrong."

I'm not the one trying to wrest money from other people based on emotion, biased information, ridiculously foolish studies, and blatant money-grab research. If you can't see the difference, you shouldn't post here.

Fall back in line. In the following video, Al Gore is driving the fossil-fueled car and honking the horn. He wants you to work harder, and tighten-up that gap between your nose and (your fellow) sheep's butt in front of you.

http://www.livele...62344081
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 17, 2013
You raise a fascinating point Scooter. I agree with your observation. Why might that be? Perhaps as someone interested in science - but not a trained and working scientist - I am very careful with my willingness to accuse someone of fraud. I don't feel I have the expertise or right to level such a charge. Many on the other side of the issue have no problem in attacking every single article - with their advanced understanding. What are the chances that every piece of scientific research on the subject of global warming is a fraud? Do you see why it is frustrating for those of us concerned about the world we are leaving to our children and grand children?


You ask "Why might that be?". Follow the money. Many studies are based on the findings of other studies. Any study based on junk is still junk.

You ask "What are the chances that every piece of scientific research on the subject of global warming is a fraud?" Zero chances. You sayin' all studies indicate global warming?
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 17, 2013
The answer is: there will be MORE twisters.
Global warming = more heat = more energy = more violent meteo phenomenas.


Oh thank you, thank you...we've all been looking for "the answer".
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2013
I'm not the one trying to wrest money from other people based on emotion, biased information, ridiculously foolish studies, and blatant money-grab research. If you can't see the difference, you shouldn't post here.


And again, he posts claiming a conspiracy, yet he seems to not be able to understand that that is what he is doing. You are stupidly clinging to a rhetoric that is increasingly lost under the avalanche of science! You are on a SCIENCE site you ignoramous!

Talk about pidgeon chess!

@djr - I disagree with your characterization of Scooter's comment as fascinating except within the very narrow confines of how dogmatically he clings to his suggestion of conspiracy and denial in the face of such over whelming evidence contradicting his view. He sees the tip of the iceberg of publications submitted for publication and thinks it is a representative sample, not thinking at all about the thousands that did not make the grade.

And there he goes again. Moron.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2013
warmists never have a disparaging word about any article or study, regardless of the accuracy, the intent, the intelligence level, ... Their conspicuous (posting) absence screams shill, fraud, and pure emotion. It throws up red flags everywhere. ....

"red flags" Indeed. An illuminating comment on the way your mind works. So you're getting confirmatory signals of your paranoia even when NO posts are made. There literally is nothing to be done for you then is there? Like life, science has greys - why should it be any different? There is frivolous science, blatantly obvious science, alarming science and probably downright incompetent science, even fraudulent science. That's life. Hopefully in the end the good science comes to the fore. To throw it all in one basket and label it worthless would negate most of what humankind has achieved. I'm glad for you, your surety. It must simplify life. You'd be wrong often, but at least the difficult bit - thinking - is eliminated.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2013
Maggnus - "I disagree with your characterization of Scooter's comment as fascinating"

Let me try an analogy. If this was a medical site, and every time there was an article about vaccinations - a predictable group of posters started in about the global conspiracy of doctors to cover up the reality of vaccinations causing autism. The pro science folks would try to argue the scientific data - only to find the exact same process repeated on the next article about vaccinations. Reason is ignored and a waste of time. What Scooter just pointed out was - that when there is an article about vaccinations - the pro science people don't immediately start jumping up and down and saying - 'see, see, we told you so.' Instead they read the article - and move on. So that is an interesting observation - that it is only the anti science gang that feels the need to keep repeating the process. It says a lot about the information involved.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2013
@ djr - Clearly I misunderstood. My appologies, when put into that light, I agree with you 100%.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2013
So what you mean is, your belief in AGW is more important to you than the truth of it.
No, I said what I meant. To say I "believe" in AGW is as non-sensical as saying that I "believe" in the sun rising. Facts are persistant things.
Non-sequitur. If facts are so persistent, why do you ignore them?
What have I written to you that's anywhere near as mean spirited as what you have written to and about me?
So now you've added hypocrisy to your repertoire.
No, that's your shtick.

Ok uba, because you're being a crybaby (seems to me I've heard that somewhere before) I am going to play your game for a little bit. I doubt very much that it will get very far before you begin claiming once again that all scientists are paid off and blah blah conspiracy blah blah they're out to do bad things blah blah but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt till that starts. so..
Perhaps you have mistaken me for another?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2013
Science: According to Hadcrut3 data, the world stopped warming as much as 17 years ago.
Hadcrut3 data is a poor base to make such an assertion
It was good enough to raise the alarm. So it should be good enough to quell it.

Hardcrut3 fails to take into account the faster and higher temperature rise in both the Artic and Antartic zones.
This is false. It uses the same dataset as HADcrut4, but the data isn't extrapolated as much (fudged).

Hadrut4 is better, although it, too, does not capture large areas of either pole.
HADcrut4 is deliberately manipulated to show more warming, based on conjecture.

It is also a poor tactic to use the time period of 16 or 17 years, as the short term data is more a measure of weather, than climate.
You're already being dishonest. The last 17 years are THE subject of discussion.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2013
Extending the data set by even 5 years in either direction changes the slope to show faster warming.
Which only serves to show it warmed BEFORE the current 17 year hiatus.

Even ignoring those weaknesses in the data set, the data still shows a rise in temperature over the period claimed, albeit at a lesser pace than predicted in most of the climate models employed by IPCC in their 1st and 2nd reports.
This is not true. You're probably using woodfortrees.org, which quit updating HADcrut3 late last year.

This is not all that surprising, however, given the complexities of dealing with a system like Earth's climate.
It's well below the IPCC "best case" estimate.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2013
More recent data has also given explanation to the lower than predicted temperature rise. At least three things have changed in the data used by IPCC in their prediction models; 1) the sun's output during the most recent solar maximum was at an unexpectedly low level; 2) mid-level global vulcanism added more particulate matter than was anticipated
So all of a sudden CO2 isn't the primary driving factor?

3) world wide CO2 loading was down due to the global economic downturn and steps by Europe and the US to reduce the amount of CO2 they added during the period in question.
This simply isn't true. The data is clear. CO2 has done nothing but steadily rise during this period.

CO2, the last 17 years in perspective.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2013
There is also evidence that an extended El Nino event helped keep global heating lower than would otherwise have been expected.
So you're saying an isolated system can simply up and change its thermal energy at will?

You need to make up your mind. Is CO2 the culprit, or not?

Not withstanding these brakes on global heating, there was still a rise in temperature. To say that it rose less swiftly than expected does not change the fact that a rise is still a rise.
Not according to HadCRUT3 data.

PS Vendicar, howhot, myself and others have told you this before. So why do you still use the exact same graph in such a way as to suggest these weaknesses have not been pointed out to you previously?
All you've done is rationalize the current warming hiatus. You've not admitted the globe simply hasn't substantially warmed in 17 years, according to the HadCRUT3 data, or even 13 years, using the manipulated HadCRUT4 data.

Instead, you insist it's still warming.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2013
The answer is: there will be MORE twisters.
Global warming = more heat = more energy = more violent meteo phenomenas.
It's not like the tornado's suck up all the added thermal energy. Energy is relative.
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 17, 2013


And there he goes again. Moron.


If I'm such an idiot/ignoramus/moron, why do you spend such an inordinate amount of time refuting what I say? You scared? Or is it your job?

ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 17, 2013
The growing list of adjective buzz-words the liberals are over-using now includes "conspiracy", thanks in a large part to Magnuss The Lock-Step Liberal. He's sure to drive the word into the ground, despite the fact that he doesn't understand the definition of it.

The list also includes the words extreme, greed, hate, racist, racism, denialist, and dis-believer.
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2013
The answer is: there will be MORE twisters.
Global warming = more heat = more energy = more violent meteo phenomenas.
It's not like the tornado's suck up all the added thermal energy. Energy is relative.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2013


And there he goes again. Moron.


If I'm such an idiot/ignoramus/moron, why do you spend such an inordinate amount of time refuting what I say? You scared? Or is it your job?

Scooter specializes in pigeon chess
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
LOL. deepend is throwing a temper tantrum. Maybe the crybaby needs his diaper changed. LOL.

deepsand
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
LOL. deepend is throwing a temper tantrum. Maybe the crybaby needs his diaper changed. LOL.

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
LOL. deepend is throwing a temper tantrum. Maybe the crybaby needs his diaper changed. LOL

deepsand
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
LOL. deepend is throwing a temper tantrum. Maybe the crybaby needs his diaper changed. LOL

ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
Birger
3.7 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2013
Since weather affects just every human endeavor, it is prudent to invest in climate science.
The effect of warming on wind shear is unknown, but it is stupid to not seek information.
BTW denial of substantial changes of recent climate is only possible south of the Canadian border. The further north you go, the more indicators of change you see.
For those who claim that all evidence is fraud there is no help, nor is there any argument that will sway them. Bad memes live forever.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2013
BTW denial of substantial changes of recent climate is only possible south of the Canadian border. The further north you go, the more indicators of change you see.

It's been noticeable here in Pennsylvania for decades, as evidenced by less severe Winter snows and temperatures, more severe Summer temperatures and droughts, changes in bird migratory patterns, and changes in flora blooming times.
triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2013
AGW, 1 Variable (CO2), infinite outcomes...

Hotter -we expect that
Colder -we expect that too
Wetter -yep this is expected
Drier - Yes this can happen as well
Windier - Ah, seems to be for sure
Wind stagnation - yep this is also unfortunately the case.

Science is about non circular arguments and being able to link direct variable(s) to direct outcome(s). You can then, if you have it correct, manipulate those variables and achieve outcomes to expected, again, and again, and again. You can't just take every possible outcome and state every one of them is proof that the variables are at play. That is a self perpetuated circular argument that cannot be disproved.

All scientific theories have to be disprovable otherwise they are circular...

Evolution, is disprovable, find a modern day rabbit fossil next to a T-Rex. It will never happen, but the point is it is technically disprovable.

AGW isn't, everything reinforces it, no matter what the weather does...Circular argument
djr
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2013
Triplex - "AGW isn't, "

Yes it is - and it has been discussed over and over on this board that it is. AGW states that over time (talking decades) the climate of the earth is going to warm - the primary driver of this warming being increased level of green house gases in the atmosphere. Here is the data to date. http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

There are other markers - equally clear - glaciers melting, ice sheets melting, ocean level increasing, ocean temperatures increasing. All the data can be had with a simple google search.

How is this not disprovable? Why do you keep bringing up the same rubbish over and over. Many have responded to this issue over and over - you are tiresome.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2013
Triplex - "AGW isn't, "

Yes it is - and it has been discussed over and over on this board that it is. AGW states that over time (talking decades) the climate of the earth is going to warm - the primary driver of this warming being increased level of green house gases in the atmosphere. Here is the data to date. http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

How is this not disprovable? Why do you keep bringing up the same rubbish over and over. Many have responded to this issue over and over - you are tiresome.


It's not disprovable because for 17 years, even the IPCC has admitted their has been NO global warming. Yet it's still being shoved down our throats.

It has also been revamped into "Climate Change" which basically says "It could also get colder"

Yeah, they're the two options, hotter and colder, pick one and stick with it. Instead, nature is laughing going both up and down and people are making gods and prophets out of this, hilarious.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2013
If I'm such an idiot/ignoramus/moron, why do you spend such an inordinate amount of time refuting what I say? You scared? Or is it your job?


With me it's driven by annoyance - as when I see/hear a religious fundamentalist, who quotes passages from the bible/koran/torah and the conversation's over. You cannot say that of (emerging) science as it is not written in stone. That - we have the truth it's all in here - logic, except that you lot use myths and ignorance of science - wear it like a badge in fact. It needs to be put down and shown up for what it is. To disagree is fine, but you can only do so by such means - those who have doubts know the evidence is against them so go with that. I have no illusions that you and your ilk will do a volte-face, but anti-science ignorance should not get the last word. I refuse to get dragged back to Galileo's time. If you want that, take off to Mr Watts blog or other and talk with the converted
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2013
Scooter: " You sayin' all studies indicate global warming?"

Please show me any studies that show the earth's temperature has not increased by approximately 1 degree C over the past 100 years. Here is the data for you.

http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

You see there is such a thing as scientific consensus. We understand that infectious diseases are caused by organisms such as bacteria and viruses. We understand that the earth has warmed approx 1 degree C over the past 100 years. See how that works? See how that is falsifiable?
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2013
runrig,

Rarely in the environmental sciences can you achieve any true repeat data as we only have 1 planet. You can barely re-produce effects to model variable weightings, and you can't even accurately predict major events.

I say it every time I read one of these AGW articles, I have a 1980's paper which was given very high regard back then. I should be typing 6ft under water according to it right now...

So please forgive me if I have my doubts, and considering the evidence against those doubts is I should be snorkeling right now but that I am not, well...

I too, get angered by religious mentality. I can't stand anti-evolutionists. The thing is, evolutionists can repeat results, as many organisms exist, we can reproduce effects and find exact genes, and can manipulate these variables with massive accuracy. We can also, and have predicted species and later dug up almost identical predictions...MASSIVE difference in levels of evidence....
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2013
Maggnus: @ djr - Clearly I misunderstood. My appologies, when put into that light, I agree with you 100%.

No sweat. On this issue of the temperature plateau that has occurred over the past 20 years - it is interesting to note that there have been periods of plateau before - most notable from 1940 to 1980. However - the other markers continued to show the system is absorbing energy (ice sheets, glaciers, ocean temps/levels). It is cherry picking to only focus on one indicator - an indicator that has a history of stair step increase. I hope that the temperatures start a downward path after this plateau - but what are the odds - given all the other indicators, and our understanding of the forcing effect of greenhouse gasses?
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2013
Triplex: "It's not disprovable because for 17 years, even the IPCC has admitted their has been NO global warming. Yet it's still being shoved down our throats."

Wrong - the data is clear that the land temperatures are on a plateau. All other indicators continue to show the system is warming. Yes it is disprovable - if the system starts cooling - it will be obvious. You do understand that the predictions are on decades long time frame right? - and that the temperatures were flat from 1940 - 1980 right? No one is shoving anything down your throat - the science is the science - and if the system starts cooling - that will be the science - and we will all breath a sigh of relief. It is tiresome to see the same arguments answered over and over - you are not interested in facts.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2013
runrig,
I say it every time I read one of these AGW articles, I have a 1980's paper which was given very high regard back then. I should be typing 6ft under water according to it right now...


I know what you are saying, but look at it in terms of a weather forecast. One 5 days ahead and one for tomorrow. The sensible/knowledgeable appreciate at 5 days away the prob of a correct forecast is necessarily lower than for tomorrow. So he/she makes a decision based on the likelihood of it being right and, crucially, when the decision has to be taken. Also that 5 day forecast is now as accurate as a 2 day one was when I joined the UKMO. You see data/science is continually improving and I'm afraid the decision has to be made now to boot. Nothing annoys me more as a weatherman than a glass half-empty type saying you're always wrong. I say -that's just as impossible as being always right. Go with the probabilities and multiply by it's importance. Do I bring up the precautionary principle?
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2013
Also that 5 day forecast is now as accurate as a 2 day one was when I joined the UKMO.


The wife & I were just discussing yesterday how much more accurate that forecasting has become in the last few years. For giggles we looked up the "track record" for the last two months or so and found that the 5-day forecasts was just about spot on. Not being an earth science guy, I don't know why they are so much better, but suspect it's because of the increased computing power available and the new observational tools.

Nothing annoys me more as a weatherman than a glass half-empty type saying you're always wrong. I say -that's just as impossible as being always right.


It's one of those things people got used to saying years ago, and haven't taken the time to see that it is a false generalization today. I for one think the meteorologists have made as much or more progress in their field as anyone But like all disciplines, outsiders will demand exactitude & perfection.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2013
Wow uba, I thought you wanted to talk about the science. Once again, you've shown all you want to do is score points in some ridiculous parady of a game you think you can "win".
I say Hadcrut3 data is outdated and a weak measure of global warming. I explain why.
Uba says, no it's not. He then claims a conspiracy (other data has been fudged/manipulated) and insists we go only by his measure. He then misrepresents what I say, and again insists we use his measure.
He uses misrepresentation to attempt to change the gist of what was said, and moves the goal posts to obfusticate the data presented.
He has done every single thing I have accused him of doing previously, and managed to do it almost in the exact order I have accused him of doing it.
Thanks uba, for being so predictable and for making my point so clearly.
Hey Scooter, I'm laughing at you, not refuting you. Your accusations of conspiracy are not worth the time to refute and far easier to make fun of.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2013
@ triplehelix says:
Hotter -we expect thatColder -we expect that tooWetter -yep this is expectedDrier - Yes this can happen as wellWindier - Ah, seems to be for sureWind stagnation - yep this is also unfortunately the case


So lets look at this claim. Hotter I guess is a given.
Colder - in some specific areas for some specific periods, yes. Has to do with the weakening of the NAM, which allows super-cooled air from the artic to penetrate to lower latitudes. These are temporary, and extremely unpredictable.
Wetter - again in some specific areas under specific conditions, yes. More important is the extent of precipitation per storm, which will, on average, be higher due to the higher moisture content warmer air can hold.
Dryer - in this case, a more general trend of drying is expected, although in some specific areas under certain specific conditions there will be significant drying
Windier - in certain areas, especially in the Southern hemisphere due to the strengthening of
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2013
of the ACC. This is especially noticable at 60 degree S latitude.
Wind stagnation - I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you are referring to areas where weather systems can stagnate, then yes will happen, again mostly due to the weakening of the NAM.

The point of all this helix, is that it is easy to point to a specific condition and argue for or against that one single condition. When you look at the system as a whole, you cannot help but see the trends emerging.

And your insistance on saying the IPCC has said no global warming points to a lack of critical thinking on your part. Show me where IPCC has said anything of the sort. Denialist blogs have said that, no one else. Try reading both sides, not fixating on just the one.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2013
One reason scientists can't figure out how global warming might affect tornadoes is that twisters are usually small weather events that aren't easily simulated in large computer models

AGW warming can explain this. Generally storms are becoming more sever in intensity as man made climate change elevates global temperatures. More intense storms = more tornadoes.

Its as simple as that.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (16) Mar 19, 2013

Hey Scooter, I'm laughing at you, not refuting you. Your accusations of conspiracy are not worth the time to refute and far easier to make fun of.


Never once have I made an accusation of conspiracy, and I've asked you repeatedly to prove me wrong - you can't, yet you continue to blather-on about conspiracy.

If I thought there was conspiracy, I would say so. What you don't understand is there's a difference between conspiracy and a business plan, between conspiracy and a marketing plan.

A conspiracy requires participation of more than one person. All it takes is one person to skew a study, regardless of how many people contributed to the study.

I pity you. You seem highly educated, yet have zero common sense, discernment, and "street smarts".
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2013
If I thought there was conspiracy, I would say so. What you don't understand is there's a difference between conspiracy and a business plan, between conspiracy and a marketing plan.


OMG stop it! You're killing me! And I laugh and laugh and laugh!
ScooterG
1 / 5 (15) Mar 19, 2013
If I thought there was conspiracy, I would say so. What you don't understand is there's a difference between conspiracy and a business plan, between conspiracy and a marketing plan.


OMG stop it! You're killing me! And I laugh and laugh and laugh!


Al Gore formed an excellent business plan that capitalizes on gullible, emotional, enviro-saviours like yourself. No conspiracy needed.

You do the work, he lines his pockets - brilliant, I must admit. Go ahead and laugh, chump.

Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2013
Al Gore formed an excellent business plan that capitalizes on gullible, emotional, enviro-saviours like yourself.


I KNOW! Cause he be all CONSPIRATORING getin all dem ENVIRO-SAVERS all lining his POCKETS an all! Doing all that CAPITALIZING an stuff! Getting all RICH from them POKETS he be LINING! Getting all dem SCIENTISTS all LYING an telling LIES an all dat!
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2013
If I thought there was conspiracy, I would say so. What you don't understand is there's a difference between conspiracy and a business plan, between conspiracy and a marketing plan.


OMG stop it! You're killing me! And I laugh and laugh and laugh!


Al Gore formed an excellent business plan that capitalizes on gullible, emotional, enviro-saviours like yourself. No conspiracy needed.

You do the work, he lines his pockets - brilliant, I must admit. Go ahead and laugh, chump.

And he does this all by himself, without the willing and knowing participation of anyone to facilitate the transfer of monies from the marks to his pockets?
ScooterG
1 / 5 (15) Mar 20, 2013
LOL...You enviro-chumps are clueless to the real world...absolutely clueless.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2013
Just answer the question, Scooter, as to whether or not Al Gore does this all by himself, without the willing and knowing participation of anyone else to facilitate the transfer of monies from the marks to his pockets.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2013
LOL...You enviro-chumps are clueless to the real world...absolutely clueless.


I KNOW! All dems CHUMPS all trying to FOOL dem smart peeps like SCOOTERG an he all CATCHING dem an stuff! All CLUELESS bout that REAL WORLD stuff! All CONSPIRATORING togeather an HIDING stuff an stuff! Not like SCOOTERG all showing he don't get FOOLED by all DEM an STUFF!
ScooterG
1 / 5 (15) Mar 20, 2013
Just answer the question, Scooter, as to whether or not Al Gore does this all by himself, without the willing and knowing participation of anyone else to facilitate the transfer of monies from the marks to his pockets.


It's entirely possible Al Gore has positioned himself to profit from AGW hysteria without the willing or knowing participation of any other person. Does your boss tell you everything he is doing and thinking??

If you are asking did Al Gore do it all by himself? Answer - I don't know, and don't care.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 20, 2013
Just answer the question, Scooter, as to whether or not Al Gore does this all by himself, without the willing and knowing participation of anyone else to facilitate the transfer of monies from the marks to his pockets.


It's entirely possible Al Gore has positioned himself to profit from AGW hysteria without the willing or knowing participation of any other person. Does your boss tell you everything he is doing and thinking??

If you are asking did Al Gore do it all by himself? Answer - I don't know, and don't care.

Evades the question.

It's your assertion to explain.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
It's entirely possible Al Gore has positioned himself to profit from AGW hysteria without the willing or knowing participation of any other person.

Wow now we know who has jumped off into the deep end. Really Scooter? Are you that far into the AL-Gore conspiracies that you have to defend your kookiness? Good luck getting a job anywhere except Fox News.

ScooterG
1 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2013
Just answer the question, Scooter, as to whether or not Al Gore does this all by himself, without the willing and knowing participation of anyone else to facilitate the transfer of monies from the marks to his pockets.


It's your assertion to explain.


Apparently I did not explain adequately.

I do not feel it was necessary for Al Gore to conspire with any other person to do what he has done (with regards to AGW). I'm certain he has hired a lot of people/companies to perform specific tasks, but a person performing a task for hire does not make that person a co-conspirator.

And again, if you are asking me if Al Gore had a co-conspirator - answer is I don't know or care.

Regardless, nowhere on this website have I claimed conspiracy. It wouldn't matter if I had, cuz I don't care about conspiracy.

Obviously the "conspiracy" buzz-word is important to you enviro-saints.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2013
" Simply, CO2 is the only increasing element in the climate system that fits the GW signal. " LOL. No it isn't The sun's activity has increased, and we're just coming out of an ice age

Wrong, LOL - the sun is at particularly low activity at the moment in what should be a high activity period. There is even speculation that it is about to enter a grand minimum similar to the Maunder. It has been declining for some years ... http://www.thelon...ated.jpg
As I said, nothing fits the evidence in terms of INCREASING variables than CO2. We are not just coming out of an ice age we are near the bottom of a cooling trend in the Milankovitch cycles and should not be seeing rising temps in the NH. BTW: your other comment is mythical. CO2 now is not comparable with the Carboniferous - 350 odd myr ago. The continents then were barely separated from Godwanalan ..http://www.histor...rous.htm
deepsand
2 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2013
Just answer the question, Scooter, as to whether or not Al Gore does this all by himself, without the willing and knowing participation of anyone else to facilitate the transfer of monies from the marks to his pockets.


It's your assertion to explain.


Apparently I did not explain adequately.

I do not feel it was necessary for Al Gore to conspire with any other person to do what he has done (with regards to AGW). I'm certain he has hired a lot of people/companies to perform specific tasks, but a person performing a task for hire does not make that person a co-conspirator.

And again, if you are asking me if Al Gore had a co-conspirator - answer is I don't know or care.

Regardless, nowhere on this website have I claimed conspiracy. It wouldn't matter if I had, cuz I don't care about conspiracy.

Still evades the issue.

Exactly what and how, with particulars, is it that you claim Gore has done so as to enrich himself by way of fraud?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2013
Until the electrical aspect of the Earth is fully quantified, along with the other aspects of course, then all the models and predictions set forth will continue to fail us as a society. This video of NWS scientist and former airman Bill Nichols explains how experiences in his career has lead him to this conclusion as well.
http://www.youtub...o4WJJL90

BTW, tornadoes are charged sheath vortices, it is an electrical discharge event. As are "tornadoes" on the Sun, Martian dust devils (Earth's too), and possibly other cyclonic storms observed throughout the solar system.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2013
"Exactly what and how, with particulars, is it that you claim Gore has done so as to enrich himself by way of fraud?"

His movie and credit trading for starters. Surely you are not so naive to think he did this for the good of the environment?

And so my question for you: Exactly where, with particulars, did I claim Al Gore was involved in a conspiracy?
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 22, 2013
Still evading the questions, Scooter.

Just what has Gore done that was fraudulent, and how did he induce others to be complicit so as to propagate such fraud without their being knowing and willing accomplices? Did he use some sort of mind control that made them tell lies that they believed to be true?
ScooterG
1 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2013
Still evading the questions, Scooter.

Just what has Gore done that was fraudulent, and how did he induce others to be complicit so as to propagate such fraud without their being knowing and willing accomplices? Did he use some sort of mind control that made them tell lies that they believed to be true?


I answered your questions twice.

Go do your own research into Al Gore, as a bonus, maybe you'll be enlightened on the entire AGW scam.

You ask "how did he induce others to be complicit so as to propagate such fraud without their being knowing and willing accomplices?" Did I say he did this?

Are you saying people never subordinate their personal integrity to money?

Why do you evade my question?
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2013
Do you really think that none can clearly see that you've not answered my questions, Scooter?

The fact is that, unless you can demonstrate that Gore did what I asked you to explain, then it involves the willing and knowing participation of more than just himself alone, which makes it a conspiracy.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2013
Do you really think that none can clearly see that you've not answered my questions, Scooter?

The fact is that, unless you can demonstrate that Gore did what I asked you to explain, then it involves the willing and knowing participation of more than just himself alone, which makes it a conspiracy.


Maybe they (the people working on Gore's projects) were actors being paid to read a script? Maybe they were truck drivers being paid to deliver a box? Maybe they were the electric company being paid to provide electric service? Maybe they provided a porta-potty service?

It's the epitome of ignorance to think Al Gore shares all the intimate details of his business plans with everyone involved in his business.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2013
So, all of the scientists upon whom Gore relies for the continued support of his alleged fraud are unknowingly falsifying their findings?

It is the epitome of stupidity to take a position that depends on such specious premises.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2013
So, all of the scientists upon whom Gore relies for the continued support of his alleged fraud are unknowingly falsifying their findings?

It is the epitome of stupidity to take a position that depends on such specious premises.


You and Magnuss have accused me of claiming conspiracy, which I have not done, and which you cannot prove.

Although improbable, it is not *impossible* that Al Gore has acted alone. Therefore it is possible that no conspiracy was involved.

That is why I have never claimed there was a conspiracy, because I simply do not know. And, as I've said twice before, I don't care.

You are only using the word conspiracy for dramatic effect, as there is no other justification for it. So unless you wish to continue to look foolish, give it a rest.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2013
BTW denial of substantial changes of recent climate is only possible south of the Canadian border. The further north you go, the more indicators of change you see.

It's been noticeable here in Pennsylvania for decades, as evidenced by less severe Winter snows and temperatures, more severe Summer temperatures and droughts, changes in bird migratory patterns, and changes in flora blooming times.
This is a lie. It's been no hotter in Pensylvania than it was in the first half of the 20th century:

http://tinypic.com/r/3586qsz/6

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2013
Wow uba, I thought you wanted to talk about the science. Once again, you've shown all you want to do is score points in some ridiculous parady of a game you think you can "win".
Apparently this is your problem, as I see you're doing nothing except avoiding a discussion of the science.

I say Hadcrut3 data is outdated and a weak measure of global warming. I explain why.
Misdirection. you don't like the dataset being discussed, so you try to change it.

Uba says, no it's not. He then claims a conspiracy (other data has been fudged/manipulated) and insists we go only by his measure.
Because the data you wish to use is highly manipulated, as stated in the title HadCRUT4 paper:

"Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates"

Do you not see the part about using "observational estimates?"

...how about where it states:

"new sea-surface temperature bias adjustments"

Continued...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Mar 25, 2013
Or where it states:

"a more comprehensive error model for describing uncertainties"

or:

"An ensemble approach has been adopted to better describe complex temporal and spatial interdependencies of measurement and bias uncertainties"

------------

It's all about making up data to fit a desired result.

Here, read it yourself:

http://www.metoff...pted.pdf

He then misrepresents what I say,
This is a lie.

and again insists we use his measure.
Because it's the measure under discussion. Why are you trying so hard to avoid it?

He uses misrepresentation to attempt to change the gist of what was said, and moves the goal posts to obfuscate the data presented.
This is a lie. I've been consistent, whereas you're the one moving the goal posts by trying to change the dataset under discussion.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Mar 25, 2013
He has done every single thing I have accused him of doing previously, and managed to do it almost in the exact order I have accused him of doing it.
Obviously, another lie.

Why are you afraid of the data under discussion? Why did you try to manipulate it by changing both the period under discussion, and the dataset itself?

Thanks uba, for being so predictable and for making my point so clearly.
Is lying and slander all you have?

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

― Socrates

Ergo: Maggnus = loser.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2013
You and Magnuss have accused me of claiming conspiracy, which I have not done, and which you cannot prove.


see here: http://www.skepti...ons.html

It appears that "conspiracy denial" may be another phenomenon associated with climate denial. One blogger cannot see that his claim that climate scientists "colluded with government officials to avoid the law" is conspiratorial. Similarly, another blogger thinks accusing the University of Western Australia of being "a base for this global climate activism operation" is not a conspiratorial hypothesis because he didn't use the word "conspiracy


lol!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2013
I KNOW! Cause he be all CONSPIRATORING getin all dem ENVIRO-SAVERS all lining his POCKETS an all! Doing all that CAPITALIZING an stuff! Getting all RICH from them POKETS he be LINING! Getting all dem SCIENTISTS all LYING an telling LIES an all dat!
You are such an ass.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2013
Uba has already been shown to be a conspiracist and a liar as it relates to climate change. He can't help himself, he can only see the conspiracy he thinks is out there. His words on the subject carry no meaning.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2013
Uba has already been shown to be a conspiracist and a liar as it relates to climate change. He can't help himself, he can only see the conspiracy he thinks is out there. His words on the subject carry no meaning.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

Ergo: Maggnus = loser.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2013
ubavontuba specializes in pigeon chess.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2013
BTW denial of substantial changes of recent climate is only possible south of the Canadian border. The further north you go, the more indicators of change you see.

It's been noticeable here in Pennsylvania for decades, as evidenced by less severe Winter snows and temperatures, more severe Summer temperatures and droughts, changes in bird migratory patterns, and changes in flora blooming times.
This is a lie. It's been no hotter in Pensylvania than it was in the first half of the 20th century:

http://tinypic.com/r/3586qsz/6

Guess that explains the record number of record highs here in PA in the past 20 years. :rolleyes:

A meaningless presentation of arithmetic means; and, from one who has no personal experience living in the Commonwealth.

More of your pigeon chess.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2013
So, all of the scientists upon whom Gore relies for the continued support of his alleged fraud are unknowingly falsifying their findings?

It is the epitome of stupidity to take a position that depends on such specious premises.


You and Magnuss have accused me of claiming conspiracy, which I have not done, and which you cannot prove.

Although improbable, it is not *impossible* that Al Gore has acted alone. Therefore it is possible that no conspiracy was involved.

That is why I have never claimed there was a conspiracy, because I simply do not know. And, as I've said twice before, I don't care.

You are only using the word conspiracy for dramatic effect, as there is no other justification for it. So unless you wish to continue to look foolish, give it a rest.

Still evading the issue.

Unless you claim that all of the scientists upon whom Gore relies for the continued support of his alleged fraud are unknowingly falsifying their findings, then you claim conspiracy.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
@deep, I wouldn't worry too much about what the denier class thinks; (ScooterG, and Ubbatuba whatever). As far as science they have no credibility and are just part of the noise machine on the internet.

It's sad to say, but sometimes you have to dismiss the arguments of a debater because they is no rational point of debate. For example Scooter say "Al Gore has positioned himself to profit from AGW hysteria" which is false. Scooter can't prove jack about that claim. And after many years of reading his crap, you can conclude that anything he says is false, with statistical certainty.

So when Uba or friends says something stupid like "So, all of the scientists upon whom Gore relies for the continued support of his alleged fraud are unknowingly..." blah blah blah, you now with statistical certainty that it is BS.

ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2013
So when Uba or friends says something stupid like "So, all of the scientists upon whom Gore relies for the continued support of his alleged fraud are unknowingly..." blah blah blah, you now with statistical certainty that it is BS.
I never said any such thing. And that you put it as a quote attributable to me is the epitome of slander.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

Ergo: Howhot = loser.

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
Ubba says:
I never said any such thing. And that you put it as a quote attributable to me is the epitome of slander.

Of course Ubba, I made that quote up. I said it was LIKE something you would say. I didn't say you said it. So, given that, isn't that what you would say? Did I frame your position on the issue incorrectly?

So when I say;
blah blah blah, you know with statistical certainty that it is BS.
How the hell is that slander?

You have your nuts and your bolts mixed up dude.
Whydening Gyre
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2013
AL Gore made a lot of money with this. His movie made a lot of money. He was room mates with a famous movie star...
OMG ! Is this some sort of conspiracy with Tommie Lee Jones as the mastermind?!?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2013
Ubba says:
I never said any such thing. And that you put it as a quote attributable to me is the epitome of slander.
Of course Ubba, I made that quote up. I said it was LIKE something you would say. I didn't say you said it. So, given that, isn't that what you would say?
As I've already stated, I never said any such thing.

Did I frame your position on the issue incorrectly?
Indeed.

So when I say;
blah blah blah, you know with statistical certainty that it is BS.
How the hell is that slander?
You're attributing a position to me which is not mine, asshole.

You have your nuts and your bolts mixed up dude.
Obviously, the one who is mixed up here is you.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

Ergo: Howhot = loser