We are absolutely seeing the results of climate change

[Hugabear]

I'm not saying that this particular tornado was a direct result of climate change. But it does represent a pattern we're seeing. Climate scientists have been warning that we would experience more extreme weather, so why should it come as a surprise when we actually experience extreme weather?

[AverageJoe90]

1. Climate change is a problem....but this particular event does NOT represent any pattern whatsoever.

And that's a fact....BUT, I'll grant you that there is one thing about this year that certainly IS quite strange, and might actually be linked to ACC: Tornado season started really, really late this year. In fact, this is the first significant weather event that's happened all year, and that normally happens by mid-April at the latest, from what I can see. So you may be right, just not in the way you thought.

[CreekDog]

4. The OP didn't say one event was a pattern --but since you're constructing a straw man of her post

I guess that's all you've got.

[AverageJoe90]

10. This had nothing to do with XemaSab. What in the FUCK are you blathering on about, CD?

I don't know what you were thinking, but this is goddamn ridiculous.

[CreekDog]

11. You making a straw man of her post and misrepresenting what it said (sometimes called "lying")

in order to do what you do here...that is to mostly post about how those who believe in climate change are mostly "dooomers" and not to believe most of the scary forecasts associated with climate change and its effects.

but if you want to play victim here, nobody's buying.

(I meant how you misrepresented the OP's post...you couldn't attack it on its own plain words, you had to make a straw man and attack that --because that's all you've got and that's what you'll do to undermine climate change arguments here).

please don't wah wah to me that you really do believe in climate change. most of your posts on climate change are to accomplish two things:

1) raise concern that most people believe extreme things about climate change which are worse than the reality will be, casting doubt on climate change arguments and their proponents

2) post the words that you really do believe in climate change so that you aren't bounced out of here as a climate change denier --but mostly you post that you believe it's occurring, while agreeing with denialists who post otherwise. it's all for show.

[AverageJoe90]

17. Where do you think that I was attacking her here?(i.e. where's the proof?)

that is to mostly post about how those who believe in climate change are mostly "dooomers" and not to believe most of the scary forecasts associated with climate change and its effects.

I like how you turn around and make a completely B.S. strawman yourself, after having the gall to accuse ME of doing such here.....I believe it's called "hypocrisy".

[CreekDog]

27. You were misrepresenting the OP to make it easier to argue against

and your pattern of posting in this way to undermine those who argue climate change is occurring is absolutely relevant when you do it in this thread.

AverageJoe90 (5,265 posts)
32. I know how you feel.

I've felt the exact same way with certain amongst the climate doomers, and some of the Obama bashers. They are just as fucking irrational as the Gungeoneers, and are about as nasty with you when you disagree with them, so much so that I myself have considered leaving DU on occasion.

But don't give up on us yet, We are a very large community, and people like the gun fanatics, and climate doomers, and Obama bashers, are quite a small minority, and they don't represent most of US, let alone most Democrats(especially the first two, but the third as well). I hope you'll come back sometime.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2791081

AverageJoe90 (5,265 posts)
57. I personally don't "detest" the doomers for the most part.....

Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:31 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

(with the exception of a slight few and one of them's been PPR'd.), it's more of a case of people who just happen to be misguided and gullible enough to believe in every flashy "World Doomed, Humanity At Risk Of Extinction" headline that pops up, regardless of its validity, and that such is inevitable, etc., and who may or may not be forceful in showing off their dogma to others.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=98159

AverageJoe90 (5,265 posts)

Riding The Rubicon: The Doomer's Curse. [View all]

Last edited Sat Mar 9, 2013, 12:59 AM USA/ET - Edit history (4)

I've been finding a lot of good stuff on the 'Net lately, and this piece is no exception. Though originally about the BP disaster, it's a piece that can apply to doomsday proponents, wannabe prophets/Cassandras, particularly Climate Change and Peak Oil doomers(but also in general).....and coming from a guy who admits his own tendency to lean in that direction.

Here's the link: http://ridingtherubicon.blogspot.com/2010/06/doomers-curse.html

Probably one of the best pieces I've read in a long time on this subject.

Edit: I apologize for removing the excerpt, but Skinner informed that I'd breached the Forum's copyright rules, because it was too long. I assure you that this was NOT intentional and I have since removed the whole thing, which hopefully, rectified the mistake.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2477708

[AverageJoe90]

35. That wasn't true and you damn well know it.

You came all the way up here accusing me of attacking XemaSab, when I was actually replying to Hugabear.
The truth is, I never did know what XemaSab had written because she deleted her comment before I finished writing my reply to the OP.

And the fact that you continue to use actual strawmen to attack ME, especially given the fact that I did nothing wrong here, is not only brazenly hypocritical, but even a little disturbing as well.

[CreekDog]

38. i didn't accuse you of stalking, i accused you of serial obfuscation on climate

you don't stalk anybody, you stalk the topic and concern troll about it.

[AverageJoe90]

42. "Concern troll".....Look who's talking, ya hypocrite.

And yes, you basically DID imply that I was(stalking XemaSab, though it should have been obvious!). Don't fucking deny it.....

[CreekDog]

43. oh? which topic am I concern trolling DU on?

is it an environmental topic?

is it a political topic?

let's hear it.

[AverageJoe90]

46. Just about every other post that criticizes "doomster" B.S., that's all. n/t

[CreekDog]

45. i didn't imply you were concern trolling on climate change

imply?

no. i just flat out said you were.

[AverageJoe90]

48. No, that isn't what I was referring to, and you know it.

I was talking about your accusation of me going after XemaSab. That was a falsehood and if you didn't know then, you do now. Stop trying to change the subject.

[CreekDog]

50. yes you did it to the OP not Xema, I wrote the wrong name

but it was referring to your argument against the OP.

sorry.

but your climate crapola persists regardless of whom you are posting it in reply to.

[AverageJoe90]

51. Sure as hell took you forever to correct that mistake, though.....

Which honestly makes me think you might just be covering your ass.

[CreekDog]

54. it took me 16 minutes after you pointed out my error

and that was an hour and a half ago and you're just noticing and saying it took forever to correct?

[joshcryer]

29. It MAY or MAY NOT represent a pattern.

Reliable data for these events is very hard to get. This is because where these tornadoes happen is out in bumfuck nowhere which is why while we have over a thousand tornadoes a year we only hear about big destruction in a few of them. The models, however, predict higher intensity storms.

Your note that "tornado season started really, really late this year" shows your cognitive dissonance on this issue. On one hand you say that these super tornadoes don't represent a pattern when you do not have the future data for which it would make a pattern if one existed (which going by the models it likely will). On the other hand you note a late tornado season, as if it somehow is more relevant than your ignorant "this doesn't represent a pattern" rhetoric.

[CreekDog]

31. well yeah, either he doesn't know he's making contradictory arguments

or he does because obfuscation is his goal.

either suggests he shouldn't be listened to.

[AverageJoe90]

32. Neither of these is true, and you know it. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

36. Josh, I've been watching the weather ALL year.

And while I apologize for any poor wording on my part, this year really DID get off to a VERY slow start.

The fact is, we may not exactly know for sure, but right now, there is just no evidence that indicates this particular event DOES represent a pattern, contrary to some assertions. And, btw, there was no cognitive dissonance on this issue on my part, and you know it.

[defacto7]

57. Hang in there Joe...

I have no idea why these guys are so blasted by your comments. It's like a bazooka to kill a word scenario. Maybe they'll sleep it off.

[joshcryer]

63. He's a minimizer.

Makes fun of what he classifies as "doomers" and uses denier arguments which I've caught him doing on numerous occasions.

[AverageJoe90]

71. Which is simply not true.....Never was to begin with, either.

And when I've asked you for proof, all you ever do is scamper away without a trace. Every time.

[joshcryer]

81. I'm not going to dig up old threads.

I have little patience to have a discussion with you because every damn time I provide citations for what I say you don't even address them and you repeat the canned creationist-style denier-style arguments like "we don't know for sure" or "the evidence is still out."

[AverageJoe90]

70. Yeah. Thanks, man.

TBH, though, they've been pulling this B.S. for quite a while now and it's getting tiring.
To make a very long story very short: They're mainly doing this because they just can't stand what I'm saying, for whatever reason. I don't claim to be this know-it-all, or whatever the case may be, but I DO call things as I see them, and at least most of the time, I've been correct(though I'll admit owning up to a few mistakes from time to time. It happens).

Thank you very much for the support.

[joshcryer]

65. There is plenty of evidence.

I linked the models here. If you have a reason to believe the models are wrong, in this instance, then I am fully open to reading about it.

There is nothing to say that this doesn't represent a pattern since you cannot tell the future. The models, based on physical science, however, try to do that. And this data point would be used to verify or falsify the models. Therefore it would represent a pattern.

[flamingdem]

2. I blame the repukes regardless

they needed to have spent more on protection for those kids

[Skittles]

8. especially after the 1999 tornado there

[flamingdem]

12. exactly!

Feel so bad for the parents sigh

[Cha]

5. Pertinent Tweets.. on what you're saying, Hugabear

Andrew Kaczynski ✔ @BuzzFeedAndrew

WFOR metrologist says this is 3x the size of the May 1999 tornado that wrecked the area.

Andrew Kaczynski ✔ @BuzzFeedAndrew

WFOR metrologist: It went from a cloud to a massive tornado in one hour.

Jim Roberts ✔ @nycjim

KFOR reporter: Hundreds, possibly thousands of dazed people walking northbound from Moore,
Okla.. Having no idea where they are going.

James Morrison @JamesPMorrison

Only the aggressively stupid still don't know the difference between weather & climate change @sarahpalinUSA ~ http://huff.to/10J2Qd

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/05/20/weve-got-your-back-oklahoma/#comments

[laundry_queen]

28. re: the second tweet

I follow some storm chasers and stream them live. I knew today was supposed to be a particularly dangerous day, so I signed on early. Their site has a function that shows the chasers, and their locations relative to the storms on radar (so you can pick which chaser in which storm you'd like to follow).

Well, when I signed on there was nothing on radar but some small blue and green dots. I checked to see which live streams were working. On one of the streams I noticed the sky looked black. I thought, WTH? The radar is showing nothing? So I hit refresh. A large storm was there where there was previously NOTHING. Elapsed time: 10 minutes. Where there was nothing, suddenly there was an entire line of tornadic storms in minutes. I've never seen that happen before.

I know they have things called pulse storms, but these blew up and STAYED strong, which is not how pulse storms work (they fade as quickly as they develop). Really bizarre.

[Cha]

33. Very much more intense, laundry queen.. "How to Understand the Scale of Today's OK Tornado"

In Moore, Oklahoma, a suburb of Oklahoma City, an incredibly powerful tornado just came and went, a nearly hour-long ordeal that, as of the time of this writing, has trapped 75 school children in their school, injured hundreds of people and left a city in ruins.

A meteorologist for the local news station KFOR called the tornado “the worst tornado in the history of the world.” That assessment is quite apt.There are a lot of parameters by which a tornado can be deemed the worst, and by pretty much all counts today’s Moore tornado is up there. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration keeps a list of historical tornadoes—devastating twisters known for their size, their duration and their destruction. Though the Moore tornado doesn’t trump any of them, its combination of size, strength and duration made it an incredibly dangerous storm.

Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/05/how-to-understand-the-scale-of-todays-oklahoma-tornado/#ixzz2TtxIZAuN

In case you hadn't read this..

[laundry_queen]

52. Interesting read.

I had seen the video (isn't it amazing how quickly it intensifies?) but I hadn't read the article. One thing they fail to mention - while so far the wind speed doesn't seem as high as with the '99 tornado, eye witnesses said it was a slow mover in comparison to '99. Slow moving tornadoes are notorious for causing serious damage and injury - they stay in the same spot for longer and so have more opportunity to scour the area right down to the dirt (see Jarrell tornado, 1997). It'll be interesting to see if it's upgraded to an EF5 after they survey the damage since sometimes slow movers have horrible damage even when their wind speed isn't as strong as other tornadoes.

[Cha]

55. thank you for that additional valuable info, lq

[joshcryer]

30. If someone told me we'd be seeing 2 MILE wide tornadoes this soon...

...10 years ago, I would've chuckled and said they were crazy. But over that period of time I came to be an alarmist and could've predicted it, practically.

[AverageJoe90]

37. 2-mile wide tornadoes were possible LONG before this century, Josh, that's the problem.

That's not alarmism, that's basic fucking science, dude!

[joshcryer]

62. The earliest recorded incidence of a tornado this large was 1968.

Which was an F3. This tornado is classified as an F4 but will likely be reclassified in the coming days as an F5, making it the largest and potentially most intense on record. The last time we had a tornado this big was in 2004.

(Do not confuse size with intensity, btw.)

[AverageJoe90]

66. That may be true, but we've only had good tornado science since the late '50s, though.

(Do not confuse size with intensity, btw.)

Don't worry, I didn't.

[joshcryer]

83. I esablised the data isn't that good, actually.

But of recorded tornadoes this one in particular is massive and the last one was within the past decade.

I am nearly certain the models will be proven correct in due course.

[AverageJoe90]

87. Which models are you referring to, btw? n/t

[joshcryer]

92. Those in post #29 which you obviously didn't read.

Joe. Here's the difference between you and I. When I am wrong I admit it. When I post something misleading (not intentionally), I admit it (say my recollection of something is wrong but has the spirit of the original information).

When you are provided information that should, reasonably, change your opinion or at least say, "Hey, you have a point" you don't admit it. You just repeat the same canned response. It is unfortunate. I learn things when you claim there's no evidence, every time. I Google it, I search it, I did. If I can't find anything I sort of have to agree with you. But that's rarely happened (I can't think of an instance where it has happened but I suspect it did at some point, if not with you, with another minimizer).

In the end, I swear, when you claim to know something or to have some information I don't know about, honest to fuck don't think you fact-check your own words. It kills me. I do it every time. I may not be a genius but internet searches can quickly falsify my own beliefs. I think, though I have no proof, you read sites that confirm the bias that you obviously have. In that event you wind up saying stuff that you believe rather than what is true.

Citations, they're important. Provide them. You could even make inroads into this debate simply by searching for whether or not tornadoes have been increasing. I already admitted they weren't, though, because I fucking did that. With the caveat that the data is shit. That's how science works, dude. You go out and you look for the data and you see what it says. In this case neither you or I have any real world data to back up our positions. Except, I have models, and in that case you have to show how those models are wrong. You don't, ergo you are fucking wrong.

[AverageJoe90]

93. Josh, the problem is, while these are solid models, they did NOT disprove my original point.

Yes, while it IS true that more energy is forecast to be in the atmosphere as the globe warms, these models did NOT disprove my original point, which was that this one particular event cannot be necessarily solidly linked with climate change.

When I am wrong I admit it. When I post something misleading (not intentionally), I admit it (say my recollection of something is wrong but has the spirit of the original information).

Josh, this is unfortunately NOT true, in regards between you and I. I won't speak about other situations, but during your arguments with me, you've only RARELY admitted when you're wrong when dealing with this stuff. I, on the other hand, HAVE actually backtracked on the few occasions where it was necessary to do so.

I swear, when you claim to know something or to have some information I don't know about, honest to fuck don't think you fact-check your own words.

I do. And so far, I haven't been wrong more than a few times.

I may not be a genius but internet searches can quickly falsify my own beliefs

And I've had to retract things, too.

In that event you wind up saying stuff that you believe rather than what is true.

That's funny. I could have sworn you had had that exact same issue with me.

Except, I have models, and in that case you have to show how those models are wrong. You don't, ergo you are fucking wrong.

The problem is, again, the models you have, while they are good pieces of research, didn't disprove my point that this particular solitary can't be solidly linked with climate change. Now, of course, climate change could conceivably make events like this one more common(unfortunately), as the models you linked did point out. But my point DOES still stand.

[young_at_heart]

6. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma would disagree with you

Inhofe has stated that he does not believe that human activities cause climate change. One wonders if he will change his mind after this.

[Skittles]

15. not if it interferes with busine$$ as usual

Inhofe is DISGUSTING

[AverageJoe90]

19. Amen to that! n/t

[CreekDog]

7. yes, more extreme weather is common to the trends they are predicting

the location of the jet stream is a critical element of the springtime tornado events in the midwest and the jet stream's location this year has been notably different in location and behavior than what is considered normal.

linking climate change to this extreme weather event is reasonable thinking.

[AverageJoe90]

13. Well, not so much more extreme weather, really, but rather, more extreme variation in occurrences.

We hardly had any major weather outbreaks until this month, CD. I'll grant you that this year's definitely been a little off, but this particular event may or may not be related to AGW. Personally, I don't see any convincing evidence that it is.

But, again, the pattern definitely was a little off this year; it could just have been a fluke(after all, GLOBAL climate change only really started in the 1980s, and this isn't a brand-new thing), but maybe there really IS something more. I don't know(though I AM leaning in the direction of climate change influences given just how late this season started, TBH).

[DCKit]

25. Wait until the "new" jet stream snaps off a little loop right over your house.

I don't know how old you are, and I don't care. In nearly fifty years of life, I've never seen or heard of weather like this.

I'd never seen anything like the derecho last summer, and we had two of them within 27 days. If we don't have two more across the eastern U.S. this summer, I'll be shocked.

[rightsideout]

84. That Derecho was something

We were without power for days. Many streets were blocked with downed trees and power lines.

[AverageJoe90]

86. Ouch. Sorry, man.

BTW, where you up anywhere near WI or MI in 1980? There was a REALLY bad derecho over there, one that might've been worse than the one you described.....scary stuff, man, just hope I don't have to live thru a storm like that one while I'm still in D/FW.....

[Yo_Mama]

9. We know no such thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Tornado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Natchez_Tornado

This is truly terrible, but it's not as terrible as other storms in US history.

[AverageJoe90]

14. Very true indeed.

Still, though, I do wonder; could climate change have played a small role in the fact that it took forever for tornado season to start this year?

[CreekDog]

24. Yes, we know that 1) climate change is occuring and 2) this event cannot be separated from climate

[AverageJoe90]

39. Yes, it can be separated, actually. Nobody can argue otherwise, for now.

I'm sorry, but there isn't any hard evidence for #2 and you know it; no, this specific event CANNOT be necessarily connected to climate change. Granted, if someone has any solid evidence to the contrary, and not just guesses, then I'd be happy to see it, but until then........

[2naSalit]

16. Truly...

Just how often have we seen weather patterns that look like this?

[XemaSab]

95. Some of those clumps are migrating birds

[DCKit]

18. It's going to be an interesting summer... and not in a good way. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. We are dreading it

[AverageJoe90]

22. Maybe so.

I do believe it's possible that a late start to the tornado season might possibly result in more tornadic activity in June, July, and maybe even August.....I'm no meteorologist, TBH, but it does seem like it could happen, though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. It fits all predictions of more extreme weather

[AverageJoe90]

23. Well, not so much more extremes, as in VARIATIONS of said extremes, in this case, TBH.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I am talking of the predictions.

When was the last one? 1999. Most of the billion + tornadoes have happened since 2000, with Joplin two years ago.

Math is not my strong point, but that fits with a higher frequency.

In other places we have other odd, and predicted events, like Santa Anna's in May.

We in the US are finally noticing

[flvegan]

34. Go vegan! (if it's not too inconvenient for you, love, considering)

[AverageJoe90]

40. Any good vegan recipes out there, by the way? n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

41. This is why people don't take us seriously.

Several of my Facebook friends posted about how this tornado is clearly proof of climate change.

I've worked with climate scientists and they are very annoyed by people who blame every bad storm on climate change.

[AverageJoe90]

44. Yeah.

TBH, climate change is an unfortunate problem, and it IS causing more extremes, and even variations of extremes as well.
But I don't blame your scientist friends at all: Indeed, not every bad storm is caused or even related to, climate change.

Stuff like this really does make it harder for us to get people to wake up and smell the coffee.....

[applegrove]

47. Are not tornados caused when cold

air meets hot? And we have had unseasonably cold weather in the north this spring.

[AverageJoe90]

49. Something does seem to be a little off this year.

Of course, no particular event can really be tied to climate change, at least not right away(if at all), but we did have a really late start to the tornado season this year: you may recall, for example, that we had very few tornadoes in March....less than 2 dozen, in fact!)

[RobertEarl]

53. Last two years have shown extremes

This March, 2013, was about the coolest ever in US
Last year's March was about the warmest March ever.
From one extreme to the other in one year.

Last year the Mississippi was about as dry as ever.
This year it was flooding about as much as ever.
From one extreme to the other in one year.

[AverageJoe90]

56. Very strange indeed, TBH. But.....

Though it'll be a while before we know if this really is the "new normal" or if it's just a fluke(even if made a little more likely by AGW). After all, coincidences have happened in U.S. weather history; Gainesville, GA being hit by two F-5 tornadoes in a single 24 hour period; two back to back heat waves in 2011 & 2012, and two significant cold waves in 1983-84 and 1985. Hell, the tiny town of Codell, KS, was hit by tornadoes in 1916, '17, and '18.....all on May 20th!
So yes, these things do happen.

[RobertEarl]

60. Extremes are what was predicted

Extremes are what we are experiencing.

Tornadoes come and go, but climate extremes, from one year to the next, are a very unusual occurrence. The weather is bouncing off the climate walls.

Just as the climate scientists predicted over ten years ago.

The arctic ice is melting. That is extreme. Unknown in this lifetime. Antarctica is changing, maybe extremely. The climate and many parts of what makes up our climate are changing rapidly. Even extremely. Just as predicted by the real climate scientists.

[DCKit]

88. When I was a kid (60's-70's) our climate was predictable.

I've never seen shit like this.

Keep adding more heat, and it's only going to become wilder.

[RobertEarl]

89. The atmosphere has been altered

When we were kids the amount of air pollutants was far less.

Now with the doubling of co2, the heat from the sun is trapped longer and is in effect adding heat to the atmosphere. And so we are now experiencing an equal and opposite reaction in the atmosphere.

Old timers in the mountains will tell you the atmosphere is a lot warmer now than it used to be.

[DCKit]

90. Which side are you on? Climate change or deniers?

You seem to be playing both in just this thread.

[RobertEarl]

91. Really?

Are you having a hard time comprehending the basic science?

Or am I not explaining it well?

[CreekDog]

61. climate is the average of weather you know...

if you change the weather enough, the climate will change with it.

[ErikJ]

58. This is nothing compared to whats coming. So lets just think about it some more.

[AverageJoe90]

64. I'm not quite so sure of that.

Granted, pretty much every scientist has agreed that extremes, and maybe to an even greater extent, variations in extremes, is getting more and more common, but "nothing compared to what's coming"? I don't think there's anything much worse than an EF-5 tornado destroying a place in terms of non-tropical severe weather, other than said type of tornado hitting a major city like Dallas or Chicago.....

[ErikJ]

69. HA! You must be a Koch brother undercover agent.

You have no CLUE.

[AverageJoe90]

74. Haha, LOL.

Would a Koch Bros. agent be willing to accept that climate change is a reality and that we need to do something about it, though?

[ErikJ]

75. I know the Koch bros. tactics. I dont trust ANY apologists.

[AverageJoe90]

76. Oh, so you were serious.....that's a shame.

TBH, I don't think you'll see too many actual Koch apologists on here.
Hell, I actually despised these dirtbags looonng before I really woke up to the reality of climate change.

[ErikJ]

78. Yeah, SUUUURE!

That's what they all say.

[Rhiannon12866]

59. I read this article on NPR today, thought it was too early to post as an OP:

Massive Tornado Hits Oklahoma Killing At Least 51, Is There a Link to Climate Change?
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/20/massive_tornado_hits_oklahoma_killing_at_least_10_is_there_a_link_to_climate_change

[Nanjing to Seoul]

67. But the science is unclear and not settled. There is still room for debate. You must accept my side

that God is bringing the next cleansing by fire as just as legitimate as your agnostic/communist/socialist/fascist/atheist/anti-American/anti-Capitalism/anti-God "philosophy of science."

You must listen to MY side. . .Economists don't agree so that's what I need to combat climate changer supporters!

Did I just sum the argument against the OP, as pathetic as it is?

[AverageJoe90]

72. Well.....

If you were referring to my question: TBH, all I can say is, that couldn't be farther from the truth and is the most pathetic rebuttal yet.

But if not, I apologize in advance.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

77. No, I was satirizing the people who will say it's not climate change. The deniers. I completely

agree the OP.

[1ProudAtheist]

80. Who's Gawwwd?

Yours? Or one of the nearly 500 different ones that weak minded souls ask on a daily basis to guide them through life. Science teaches you how to be self reliant about such things. Science answers the questions that faith can only compound. Science separates fact from fiction, and faith ignores facts to promote fiction.

Those dinosaur bones got here somehow, and ole hey-zuess didn't ride one across the desert. Give me a science book and I will have a fighting chance in a disaster, while those holding onto a big book of lies will be looking skyward awaiting directions from some sort of sky pilot. I'll take my chances any day with those choices.

And.......I'll bet you any amount of money that you want, that those heroic teachers in Oklahoma today, used facts learned from a science book about how to save those children, not from reading a fairy tale from a story book.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

82. My Gawwd. . .he has a bigger shwantz than all those other Gawwds!!!!

And I am a heroic teacher.

[MFM008]

68. lets face it

the weather of all types, from fires due to drought to snow in May, are all going to get worse not better.

[AverageJoe90]

73. Certainly seems like it.

They just had another bad winter in Europe this year. Not every little event can be blamed on climate change, but we HAVE been seeing more strange coincidences occurring over the past decade or so.
The science is certainly totally settled on the matter in this regard, at least; yes, human Co2 emissions ARE messing with the climate, and yes, we SHOULD do something about it.

[DallasNE]

79. Storms Like This Drop Out Of A Hook Echo Formation

I'm waiting to see one of these hook echo's to go a full 360 and create a 25 mile wide storm -- like a mini-hurricane. Since it has never happened I'm not sure it is possible but who knows what could happen when the Gulf warms up another couple of degrees and pumps that much more humid air northward.

One way climate change might be measured is to study the pattern of severe weather and whether the range of severe weather is expanding -- like tornados in Maine, for instance.

[AverageJoe90]

85. We won't be seeing 25-mile wide tornados, though(5 miles might be a different story, though)

But, it does seem that the range of regular severe weather may very well already be permanently expanding in some areas, so I'd like to see some research on that, too.

[gopiscrap]

94. We sure are and the climate deniers are either

fucking ignorant idiots, dellusioned fundies or greedy capitalists wishing to reap as much profit from humanity as possible til they totally rape the environment barren!