Is Climate Change in any way shape or form related to more tornadoes?

I actually agree^. I was not referring to tornados specifically with my above post, but more to weather anecdotes in general. Additionally, one year anecdotal weather anomalies does not begin to connect the dots. Multiple years and indeed decades would then tend to reenforce the anecdotes.

Icarus

 

I don't know what beliefs or evolution has to do with it.

I think the recent storms are evidence of AGW and my beliefs are no secret.

Besides, trending the past few thousand years is sufficient to suspect something abnormal is going on.

 

Plain and simple. Either we stop denying that Climate Change is real, and produced by humans and do something about it, or the human race becomes extinct.

And if it's not, what's wrong with cleaning up the environment of the only planet we have to live on?

 

Here we go again, austingreen and his climate change = global warming hobbyhorse. OR climate change is a marketing moniker for global warming. It is not between me and mojo, it is between you and you.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

PS with respect to odds it is only at odds if you expect direct correlation.

 

Because science is not based on "belief"! It is based on reproducible scientific study!

Icarus

PS If you don't "believe" in global warming, (or evolution) doesn't make it not so!

 

^ was not trying to pick a fight with you - sorry if I led you to think that.

Just saying that the evidence for AGW does not depend on beliefs or evolution, etc.

 

Weather is a random beast. Climate change is slow. Connecting the two is difficult unless you look at long term trends. That's really the problem in the politics. There is no defining event. And our politicians are mostly lawyers who don't understand science.

 

Look, Icarus can't have it both ways .
If Dr Spencer is invalidated because of his Christian beliefs ,then christians who believe in global warming ,invalidate global warming theory as well.
Sorry Charlie,Icarus doesn't approve of your belief.You bring the global warming theory down a notch.

 

I didn't invalidate Spencer because of his Christian beliefs. What I did was question the veracity of his science because of his lack of acceptance of one of the basic tenants of science, a basic foundation of biology,,evolution.

Quite frankly, I have no idea if he is a Christian or Jewish or a Wicken, and it as irrelevant to the conversation as wether or not he is a Nazi.

I am not an arbiter of "believe" but when belief runs counter to fact, I have an issue with that said belief.

If you wish to tout the genius of Spencer and his "science" feel free. My basic research suggests that he is not particularly credible.

Sorry,

Icarus

 

Look at warming on a geological time frame of millions of years and there is zero proof of co2 causing any warming.
Look at the last 50 years of severe tornadoes decreasing ,and folks here have a mind fart reconciling how global warming creates less severe tornadoes.
But then disregard facts and insist that current tornadoes are caused by global warming.

 

Just stick to facts.I agree with you on your religious stance but it dosent mean shit outside of the political forum.
Einstein believed in God. Does that invalidate his theories.I don't think so.

 

It should be noted, that I am not the only one who thinks that Spencer, his "science" and his methodology is suspect. In addition to the links I provided last night, if anyone is not yet convinced, here are a few more:

Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say? « Climate Progress

As they say,, follow the money:

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Roy W. Spencer

Roy Spencer

I could go on, but people will believe what they want to believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Icarus

 

Einstein may have believed in God, but so what? Believe in God, or spirituality does not mean belief in Pseudo Science,, like the "Creation Science" non sense.

I am not suggesting that because one believes in God, or is a Christian, or Hindu or what ever, that that person's views and opinions are ergo wrong. (or right!). What I am saying is that one can certainly question the "scientific conclusions" drawn by people who have exhibited a limited acceptance of modern science.

In addition, if one reads enough about Spencer, one quickly realizes that many of his pet projects outside his University are pretty typical right wing, big business, big energy, private property rights front groups, many of whom have big backing from those same sources.

Does he actually believe in the causes that he represents, and the conclusions that he draws? Probably. Do I believe that it is possible that his conclusions are clouded in some manner by other outside issues? Probably.

I have read, (and provided) enough rebuttal to many of his "scientific" conclusions to conclude that he is not a credible source for climate conclusions.

Icarus

 

Because science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God.
If you believe in God then you are outside of science.
But you want to invalidate those who have beliefs outside of science.
Actually you want to draw attention away from FACTS.That's what pisses me off.
You say you have facts on your side.
But when confronted with facts that destroy your belief,you deflect them with a strawman.
There are less number of severe tornadoes today than before the recent global warming.
Address the facts.
Just saying.

 

+1
Einstein's belief in "God" was not about a magical person in the sky.

 

Can you back that assertion with any scientific evidence?
My point is your side is deflecting facts with bullshit.
I'm trying to get on topic.
When confronted with facts ,your team merely goes off topic.
Can't face facts means you are wrong.

 

Believing in God (or a creator or spirit or whatever) does not preclude an acceptance of basic science. If, however, your belief in the basic tenants in your religion (which is very different IMHO than a belief in God) is in conflict with basic science then we have a problem.

For example, a geologist, trained and learned in the way the earth works, also believes that the earth is only 6000 or whatever years old because the myths of his/her religion (which purports to be true) then you have a logical disconnect. There are endless examples of people who can understand and do science 6 days a week, and somehow can suspend that knowledge when they go to church on Sunday.

As to your assertion that I wish to " draw attention away from the facts" In truth, if you actually read the links I provided last night, you would have found lots of repudiation of Spencer's methodology and conclusions. So that FACT is, his use of "science" is suspect, and in my mind, his motivation is more than suspect.

Just because, on the day of a tornado outbreak, he "predicted" the possibility of tornadic activity on that same day, (just like every other weather forecaster in the country) is no great feat of science! Just turn on the weather channel.

Like I said, if you wish to accept this guy as the be all and end all of climate change scientists, be my guess. I will continue to read, research sources whose methods are better, and whose motives are less suspect.

Icarus

 

DUH.
Dude you are confused and clueless.

Piers Corbyn is a leftist.Try and create a strawman for him.But you probably have tried and failed.Very sad you can't create a strawman for Piers Corbyn.

 

DUH.
Dude you are confused and clueless.You are confusing Dr Spencer with Piers Corbyn.

Piers Corbyn is a leftist.Try and create a strawman for him.But you probably have tried and failed.Very sad you can't create a strawman for Piers Corbyn.

 

Back on topic .There has been less number of severe tornadoes in the present than in the past 50 years.
Climate has warmed.
How does less number of severe tornadoes equate to "global warming caused Joplin?"