EDIT for Raisin Caine: the gelatinous M.D. constantly makes false claims. Repeatedly--virtually every time he asks a question. You think that's ok, by labeling it "sarcasm". It rarely if ever seems like an attempt at humor. If it was just an attempt at sarcasm rather than misleading he could open his up his questions so that others could point that out. He doesn't do that.
It's amazing that you and Jerry think that doing a random Google search on anything proves your point. I just Googled "Raisin Caine flunked statistics" and got 69 million hits. Should I read through them to find out about you flunking statistics?
You can use IPCC as your source but that doesn't include all alarmists. IPCC is a political organization that no decent scientist would use as a source. Whenever there are numerous tornadoes, out come the political hacks blaming our CO2. Graphic provided a good list. You can deny that alarmists don't try to use everything under the sun but the sun to blame on our CO2 emissions, but the evidence is staring you in the face as provided by Graphic and you people call us deniers. I have come to realize that alarmists have a real blind spot for recognizing humor or sarcasm even as Raisin said, it is really really obvious.
I as The Major Disaster Solutionist American Master have figured out all of Nature's Disaster solution's and you'll find all but 2 on the Covington Who's Who web site. There are 2 Tornado solution's one for the Tornado (but thats tricky) and one for where it makes a Tornado and keeps it going, but I'd need those that hunt Tornado's to experiment with them first. As for my Hurricane solution Governor christi implemented it on Hurricane Earl in 2010 and destroyed it, but he ignored the solution for Hurricane Sandy for FREE federal Disaster Money and a fire started that he was responsible for. Mike
The IPCC in their reports say many things that the alarmists ignore, because they are more interested in scaring the public. So antarcticice is declaring it is wrong to say global warming will cause more tornadoes.
That is a start. I have been asking many questions lately trying to get people to comment on scare stories in the news.
Just go and do a search for 'hurricanes climate change' or 'hurricanes global warming' and you will see a significant amount of information on this subject, most of which are alluding to that hurricanes, either in force or number' are correlating with global warming or climate change. These articles are attempting to cause panic. And the true scientists on this site say 'needlessly' cause panic. This is typical of the greenie operations, say something, then deny you said that. Meanwhile you have got people going through sleepless nights and lining up to cede power and monies to your cause. This is your intended purpose, not saving the world.
Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
You fellas even admit it.
I answered this in another question but I repeat it here for your convenience:
We agree with you and the IPCC. You just need to make sure that the people in power and ones who should know better are also getting the message:
--
"In defense of global warming being a man-made problem, Klain [Ron Klain, Ebola Czar and Vice President Biden's former chief of staff] cited "hurricanes" and "a record year for tornadoes," also claiming that Republicans are citing information from "scientists and researchers sponsored by the oil industry.".
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014...
--
"Former United Nations adviser and economist Jeffrey Sachs tweeted out Sunday night that the severe storms that hit Illinois on Sunday were the result of human-induced global warming."
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/18/global...
--
"The paper by Diffenbaugh [Earth scientist at Stanford University] and his colleagues represents "the first significant evidence that we might expect to see a change in tornadoes," says NOAA's Brooks.
Meanwhile, Brooks thinks he might have found a trend in a different area: actual tornado statistics."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2...
--
"Tom Curtis [SkS Moderator] at 09:07 AM on 11 June, 2011
Responding to Eric the Red:
In 1954 there were 550 tornadoes, and 36 tornado related fatalities. This compares with 1039 tornadoes to June 8th, 2011, with 525 fatalities. 1974 is a much better comparison year, but there have already been 94 more US tornadoes as of June 8th than in 1974, and 159 more fatalities. With just 75 EF3 plus tornadoes to June 8th, 2011 is unlikely, as you point out, to exceed the 121 (122?) F3 tornadoes in 1974, but the switch from the Fujita scale to the extended Fujita scale makes such comparisons tricky. None of that adresses the extraordinary quantity of tornadoes in April, with 675 confirmed tornadoes, significantly more than double the amount in April of 1974:"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-...
--
"Cameron Lee of Kent State University, writing in the journal, Natural Hazards has found that modelling suggests that there could be a future increase of tornadoes in certain US states of up to 12.7% however he also warns that future projections are problematic and “inherently simplistic”. This doesn’t mean that climate models are wrong but rather it is incredibly difficult to provide concrete future predictions when taking into consideration so many variables. "
http://www.inourworld.org/extreme-weathe...
--
Try this simple thing.
Step 1: Go on to Google
Step 2: Enter in "Global warming and tornadoes"
Step 3: READ
Once you have done that, come on back here and tell me how "deniers" are making false claims about what warmers are saying.
Pegminer, I said it was alright to use sarcasm and satire, ESPECIALLY when it is OBVIOUS. Once again lying, aren't you??? It is funny to me, how much you politic around to avoid blatant lies on the science, skating such a thin line, but just go straight out to LYING when talking about others.
What a good unbiased scientist you are, LMAO.
Edit:
Let me explain it in wee little words for pegminer.
Warmers claim big changes. Warmers say AGW cause floods.
Jello say not true by using satire.
Oops, i forget, satire too hard for you to understand...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/s...
Jello try to show that even warmers do not want to say AGW causes tornadoes.
Jello right. Warmers say AGW not cause tornadoes here, showing warmers in the sites below were not telling full truth.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/clima...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26...
"Although the climate does not appear to be making tornadoes more frequent, when they come, they come in bunches," says Elsner. "So you'll see fewer days in which you're threatened by tornadoes, but when you are, the threat will be greater."
Satire not lying. Satire is satire.
Got it "good Dr."?
Pegminer,
Too funny. One google search and I find a TON of articles claim AGW causes tornadoes, do you search and you don't have ANYONE making the claim you are searching for, EXCEPT this site RIGHT here written by YOU.
As for satire, you continually crack me up. Do you think Jello wants peopel to believe AGW causes tornadoes??? If your answer is NO, then clearly he was attempting sarcasm or satire.
As far as his humor, I don't think he is particularly funny, BUT I didn't accuse him of LYING!!! And BTW, from all I can tell, your sense of humor is atrocious.
This is getting old and tired, stop trying to claim deniers are making up ridiculous claims about bad weather being induced by CO2. The truth is were it not for alarmist scare tactics AGW would be about as relevent as Pluto being demoted from planet status.
So why do articles in even supposedly scientific magazines always blame extreme weather on climate change, plus nearly every week a politician or MSN will suggest that weather will get worse if we don't cut back on CO2.
The graphs in your link are out of date, except for sea level rise, the rise has flattened out.
Because they have no real data to back up their politically motivated opposition to scientific realities
When groups like the IPCC have said they can't predict tornado activity.
As they state in black and white at the bottom of this page
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html
I note none of the deniers who have used this claim have even tried to back it with links to anything.
deniers prefer wuwt than reading directly from.the ipcc report.
in some cases like a few days ago, it is more about inflaming and spamming than facts.
that gelatenous 'doctor' also moved the question to totally unrelated forums.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=glo...
only 558,000 results
