What we're being told - is wrong.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Ah yes. The "Wizard of Oz" proof against global climate change.

Another great representative for Auburn University. :no:/>

Your mock indignation does nothing to dispute my point. Tornadoes are/ have been common place in that part of the world for 70+ years. Fact is, contrary to Democrats & Leftists, this was NOT the result of any global warming. Tornadoes occur LESS, not more. Which is counter to the claims that violent weather will happen with greater frequency

But close your eyes & listen to your piper.

First, my "indignation" was not "mock". Assuming you are in fact a graduate of AU, as a fellow alum, I find your posts embarrassing.

( Yes, I'm and AU grad, and you've no reason to be embarrassed per my posts )

Secondly your comment about there being tornadoes in that part of the country is a non-sequitur relevant to global climate change. Science is quite aware of the natural history of any given area (and it goes back further than "70 yrs" btw).

( Actually, it's extremely germane to the issue. )

Valid theories are predictive. The predictions associated with global climate change theory include stronger and more frequent storms of all types. That doesn't mean that any given E4 or E5 storm "proves" the theory of climate change, but they are certainly consistent with the predictions.

( There's been fewer tornadoes AND hurricanes, but keep singing the AGW tune. I find it hi-larious )

The proof is ultimately "in the pudding". Certainly for people who prefer to simply deny the science based on political reasons. And there is plenty of money out there to feed such ignorance.

The proof IS in the pudding. As in, those who WANT AGW to be real, so they can push their social / political agendas on an unsuspecting public.

Hugo Chavez was kind enough to come right out and say it, before he died.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

First, my "indignation" was not "mock". Assuming you are in fact a graduate of AU, as a fellow alum, I find your posts embarrassing.

Secondly your comment about there being tornadoes in that part of the country is a non-sequitur relevant to global climate change. Science is quite aware of the natural history of any given area (and it goes back further than "70 yrs" btw).

Valid theories are predictive. The predictions associated with global climate change theory include stronger and more frequent storms of all types. That doesn't mean that any given E4 or E5 storm "proves" the theory of climate change, but they are certainly consistent with the predictions.

The proof is ultimately "in the pudding". Certainly for people who prefer to simply deny the science based on political reasons. And there is plenty of money out there to feed such ignorance.

I'm not going to pay another tax, especially to the UN, so poor folks (who can't think for themselves and are only hunter-gatherers) can have the same lifestyle I have here. "The world needs ditch-diggers too." Danny, Danny, Danny.

[cptau 169]

The Fujita scale started to be used in 1973. They retroactively applied it reports of tornadoes back to the 1880s.

Whether they know about all the tornadoes from back then is the question. The Midwest and South had much lower populations back then. Not every tornado in the underpopulated areas got recorded. Since many are at night, they aren't seen. Radar and higher population density detects them know.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I'm not going to pay another tax, especially to the UN, so poor folks (who can't think for themselves and are only hunter-gatherers) can have the same lifestyle I have here. "The world needs ditch-diggers too." Danny, Danny, Danny.

Seriously. Haven't we learned this lesson already ? From the Spanish Conquistadors coming to the new world to 'tame the savages' to others, who claim to have the best intentions at heart, but really want to modernize and " enlighten " their fellow human beings.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

No hurricanes in the panhandle since Katrina 2005. Not exactly ramping up.

[homersapien 11,812]

If you could link us to this scientific data linking tornadic activity to climate change, that would be great. I know of several computer models linking climate change and rising sea levels to more intense and more frequent hurricanes.

Also, it is hard for me to understand how someone from your point can say "close your eyes & listen to your piper.", when all of the scientific data points in the climate change direction. You seem to be the one with their eyes closed...

Because much of the same language for global warming was used by the vast majority of the scientific community almost 40 years ago. Only it was global COOLING which the were railing against, not warming.

Show me one literature review or position paper by a scientific society that supports that claim.

[homersapien 11,812]

First, my "indignation" was not "mock". Assuming you are in fact a graduate of AU, as a fellow alum, I find your posts embarrassing.

Secondly your comment about there being tornadoes in that part of the country is a non-sequitur relevant to global climate change. Science is quite aware of the natural history of any given area (and it goes back further than "70 yrs" btw).

Valid theories are predictive. The predictions associated with global climate change theory include stronger and more frequent storms of all types. That doesn't mean that any given E4 or E5 storm "proves" the theory of climate change, but they are certainly consistent with the predictions.

The proof is ultimately "in the pudding". Certainly for people who prefer to simply deny the science based on political reasons. And there is plenty of money out there to feed such ignorance.

I'm not going to pay another tax, especially to the UN, so poor folks (who can't think for themselves and are only hunter-gatherers) can have the same lifestyle I have here. "The world needs ditch-diggers too." Danny, Danny, Danny.

Now there's an eloquent scientific rebuttal! :-\

Thanks for proving my point.

[homersapien 11,812]

No hurricanes in the panhandle since Katrina 2005. Not exactly ramping up.

Seriously? :-\

That's pathetic.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Already done. See '75 Newsweek article above.

If you could link us to this scientific data linking tornadic activity to climate change, that would be great. I know of several computer models linking climate change and rising sea levels to more intense and more frequent hurricanes.

Also, it is hard for me to understand how someone from your point can say "close your eyes & listen to your piper.", when all of the scientific data points in the climate change direction. You seem to be the one with their eyes closed...

Because much of the same language for global warming was used by the vast majority of the scientific community almost 40 years ago. Only it was global COOLING which the were railing against, not warming.

:bs:/>

Show me one literature review or position paper by a scientific society that supports that claim.

[Weegle777 78]

Ah yes. The "Wizard of Oz" proof against global climate change.

Another great representative for Auburn University. :no:/>

LOL! Next it will be "climate change is just a theory."

No, climate change is a very real and huge business. Al Gore was smart for jumping on that panic inducing industry.

[homersapien 11,812]

Already done. See '75 Newsweek article above.

If you could link us to this scientific data linking tornadic activity to climate change, that would be great. I know of several computer models linking climate change and rising sea levels to more intense and more frequent hurricanes.

Also, it is hard for me to understand how someone from your point can say "close your eyes & listen to your piper.", when all of the scientific data points in the climate change direction. You seem to be the one with their eyes closed...

Because much of the same language for global warming was used by the vast majority of the scientific community almost 40 years ago. Only it was global COOLING which the were railing against, not warming.

:bs:/>

Show me one literature review or position paper by a scientific society that supports that claim.

Let's set the position paper aside for the moment. Hopefully it is self-evident.

You don't know what I meant by a "literature review" do you? Would you like for me to explain?

[homersapien 11,812]

lol

You and Raptor get such amusement from BS. :-\

You should consider work in the livestock industry.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I don't CARE what you mean. Huge difference. I'm not jumping through your inane hoops just because YOU are put out that I don't buy into your culist views on climate change.

I put the mirror up before you , and you recoil. My work here is done.

[homersapien 11,812]

I font CARE what you mean. Huge difference. I'm not jumping through your inane hoops just because YOU are put out that I don't buy into your culist views on climate change.

I put the mirror up before you , and you recoil. My work here is done.

LOL! I see the "Weegle defense" is spreading in popularity.

(But I have to admit, sometimes I do look in the mirror and "recoil" )

But back to topic:

First, my broadband is down until (supposedly) later tonight, and I am using a dial-up connection that is way to slow for me to vet your links. Even so, the primary link, "Real Science", is an obvious climate change theory "debunker" site. (Wonder who funds it?) It is clearly intended for an audience that is, shall we say, not very knowledgeable about science in general, much less climate science in particular. In other words, it is essentially a political site, not a science site.

I don't have the time to download the secondary link (to Newsweek) but I will do so after my broadband is restored and get back to you with my comments.

I take it you are not interested in knowing what a "literature review" is?

[AURaptor 1,137]

It's not germane to the discussion. So, no. I don't care.

[Weegle777 78]

I font CARE what you mean. Huge difference. I'm not jumping through your inane hoops just because YOU are put out that I don't buy into your culist views on climate change.

I put the mirror up before you , and you recoil. My work here is done.

LOL! I see the "Weegle defense" is spreading in popularity.

(But I have to admit, sometimes I do look in the mirror and "recoil" ;D/> )

But back to topic:

First, my broadband is down until (supposedly) later tonight, and I am using a dial-up connection that is way to slow for me to vet your links. Even so, the primary link, "Real Science", is an obvious climate change theory "debunker" site. (Wonder who funds it?) It is clearly intended for an audience that is, shall we say, not very knowledgeable about science in general, much less climate science in particular. In other words, it is essentially a political site, not a science site.

I don't have the time to download the secondary link (to Newsweek) but I will do so after my broadband is restored and get back to you with my comments.

I take it you are not interested in knowing what a "literature review" is?

Still obsessed with me I see. You are beginning to freak me out, please stop mentioning me. Didn't know that I could get under your skin that much.

[homersapien 11,812]

It's not germane to the discussion. So, no. I don't care.

I disagree. You said:

"Because much of the same language for global warming was used by the vast majority of the scientific community almost 40 years ago. Only it was global COOLING which the were railing against, not warming."

That clearly implies the scientific community embraced a general theory of global cooling as little as 40 years ago. A simple literature review is a obvious way of testing that claim. (Of course, it helps to know what a literature review is.)

[homersapien 11,812]

I font CARE what you mean. Huge difference. I'm not jumping through your inane hoops just because YOU are put out that I don't buy into your culist views on climate change.

I put the mirror up before you , and you recoil. My work here is done.

LOL! I see the "Weegle defense" is spreading in popularity.

(But I have to admit, sometimes I do look in the mirror and "recoil" ;D/> )

But back to topic:

First, my broadband is down until (supposedly) later tonight, and I am using a dial-up connection that is way to slow for me to vet your links. Even so, the primary link, "Real Science", is an obvious climate change theory "debunker" site. (Wonder who funds it?) It is clearly intended for an audience that is, shall we say, not very knowledgeable about science in general, much less climate science in particular. In other words, it is essentially a political site, not a science site.

I don't have the time to download the secondary link (to Newsweek) but I will do so after my broadband is restored and get back to you with my comments.

I take it you are not interested in knowing what a "literature review" is?

Still obsessed with me I see. You are beginning to freak me out, please stop mentioning me. Didn't know that I could get under your skin that much.

Sorry but my comments about the "Weegle Defense" have nothing to do with you per, se'.

First, you aren't really "Weegle" technically speaking. That's your forum name. So I don't really know anything about you, I just know "Weegle".

Secondly, I am referring to a particular style of response that seems to be catching on. I first noticed it being used by "Weegle" so I named it after him. I apologize if you are taking it personally. It's just shorthand.

I suppose I could call it the "I-got-nuttin-but-a-dismissive-insult, I'm-done-with-you" response, but it's kind of awkward.

[Weegle777 78]

I font CARE what you mean. Huge difference. I'm not jumping through your inane hoops just because YOU are put out that I don't buy into your culist views on climate change.

I put the mirror up before you , and you recoil. My work here is done.

LOL! I see the "Weegle defense" is spreading in popularity.

(But I have to admit, sometimes I do look in the mirror and "recoil" ;D/> )

But back to topic:

First, my broadband is down until (supposedly) later tonight, and I am using a dial-up connection that is way to slow for me to vet your links. Even so, the primary link, "Real Science", is an obvious climate change theory "debunker" site. (Wonder who funds it?) It is clearly intended for an audience that is, shall we say, not very knowledgeable about science in general, much less climate science in particular. In other words, it is essentially a political site, not a science site.

I don't have the time to download the secondary link (to Newsweek) but I will do so after my broadband is restored and get back to you with my comments.

I take it you are not interested in knowing what a "literature review" is?

Still obsessed with me I see. You are beginning to freak me out, please stop mentioning me. Didn't know that I could get under your skin that much.

Sorry but my comments about the "Weegle Defense" have nothing to do with you per, se'.

First, you aren't really "Weegle" technically speaking. That's your forum name. So I don't really know anything about you, I just know "Weegle". ;)/>

Secondly, I am referring to a particular style of response that seems to be catching on. I first noticed it being used by "Weegle" so I named it after him. I apologize if you are taking it personally. It's just shorthand.

I suppose I could call it the "I-got-nuttin-but-a-dismissive-insult, I'm-done-with-you" response, but it's kind of awkward.

Alrighty.

[AURaptor 1,137]

It's not germane to the discussion. So, no. I don't care.

I disagree. You said:

"Because much of the same language for global warming was used by the vast majority of the scientific community almost 40 years ago. Only it was global COOLING which the were railing against, not warming."

That clearly implies the scientific community embraced a general theory of global cooling as little as 40 years ago. A simple literature review is a obvious way of testing that claim. (Of course, it helps to know what a literature review is.)

I know what I posted. I posted it. I then gave an example of the point being made.

[Shire5k 19]

The climate changes. It used to be like, super cold and stuff. Then it wasn't. Now it's all mild and whatnot.

Climate change exists....it's just the Democrats are trying to attribute current climate change (which they can't prove is actually happening) to human pollution (which they definitely can't prove).

[Weegle777 78]

The climate changes. It used to be like, super cold and stuff. Then it wasn't. Now it's all mild and whatnot.

Climate change exists....it's just the Democrats are trying to attribute current climate change (which they can't prove is actually happening) to human pollution (which they definitely can't prove).

Prepare to be impugned.

[homersapien 11,812]

It's not germane to the discussion. So, no. I don't care.

I disagree. You said:

"Because much of the same language for global warming was used by the vast majority of the scientific community almost 40 years ago. Only it was global COOLING which the were railing against, not warming."

That clearly implies the scientific community embraced a general theory of global cooling as little as 40 years ago. A simple literature review is a obvious way of testing that claim. (Of course, it helps to know what a literature review is.)

I know what I posted. I posted it. I then gave an example of the point being made.

And one example does not constitute a "vast majority of the scientific community". So, I say your statement is completely bogus (or BS).

A literature review would illustrate to what extent such a theory was being tested by the scientific community which illustrates how seriously it was being considered, thus the relevance.

Or to put it another way, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your "facts".

[homersapien 11,812]

The climate changes. It used to be like, super cold and stuff. Then it wasn't. Now it's all mild and whatnot.

Climate change exists....it's just the Democrats are trying to attribute current climate change (which they can't prove is actually happening) to human pollution (which they definitely can't prove).

Prepare to be impugned.

Heck, not by me.

I recognize pure brilliance when I see it - "the climate changes. It used to be like, super cold and stuff." :-\

And I didn't realize the global scientific research on the subject was being conducted by a U.S. political party! So I learned something.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

No hurricanes in the panhandle since Katrina 2005. Not exactly ramping up.

Seriously? :-\/>

That's pathetic.

Spoken like a non resident of the area. We don't want hurricanes. Sounds like a couple of nasty storms would be okay with you since it would support your bogus theory. Don't worry we will be okay.