If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Mild tornado season a "bummer" for scientists who were really looking forward to seeing lots of trailer parks get wiped out   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 77
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1704 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2009 at 1:38 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-07-31 12:49:15 AM
blueopossum.homestead.com

"When I was 12, I was in a tornado. We were in a mobile home, and I think God must really hate mobile homes, Andy, cuz tornadoes always attack them first. They get very mobile."
 
2009-07-31 12:54:53 AM
your homes are on wheels! moooove, f*ckers!

/mencia.
//i lol'd.
 
2009-07-31 01:02:08 AM
That's actually quite sad since Vortex-2 had such a good start, but nothing since the first couple of weeks. I think they still got some good data early, but that's mostly it.
 
2009-07-31 01:45:48 AM
I know a gal that fights forest fires for a living. She gets bummed when we have a wet spring/summer and a quiet fire season.

It happens.
 
2009-07-31 01:51:59 AM
Looks like Storm Chasers might have a lame season this year. Sucks for all those crazy motherfarkers. I really wanted to see the perfected TIV II go through some wicked storms.
 
2009-07-31 01:53:05 AM
Great timing on this, I saw my first funnel cloud yesterday on the way home from work. It came down twice, but didn't hit the ground that I could see. It was raining, I was on the interstate, and fumbling the cam out of my pocket at the time didn't seem such a brilliant plan. By the time I got to a spot with a view to park, it was gone.

Oh well, there will be others I'm sure.
 
2009-07-31 01:56:05 AM
Of course the science wonks are disappointed in a mild tornado season. They can get much better grants if they can seem to support the global warming hoax.
 
2009-07-31 01:58:15 AM
Troll season!

Duck season!

Troll season!

Duck season!
 
2009-07-31 02:00:28 AM
chupathingie: Troll season!

Duck season!

Troll season!

Duck season!


both wrong...it's baseball season, Loved it...
 
2009-07-31 02:14:07 AM
Well I was anxious for hurricane season just so CNN would shut up about Michael Jackson.
 
2009-07-31 02:21:07 AM
nope. I really believe it's a hoax, particularly the unsupported step in logic that we can do anything about human-caused warming without going back to subsistance farming with the related massive human die off.

Obama is set on wrecking the economy so we can lead the world into oblivion. Passage of the Cap and Tax bill is a clear indication. It's also quite factual that global warning skeptics do not get grants in the current political environment. Almost everybody who is against Cap and Tax is pretty much ok with this line of reasoning. And there are lots of folks who sincerely believe this, including me. No troll, just stating the obvious here, at least from my point of view.

Gore's labeling of global warning skeptics as "deniers" is an obvious attempt to demonize the skeptics with the same irrational crap associated with Holocaust deniers. Sure, Gore's got a huge vested financial interest in the fraud. The Cap and Tax bill didn't use an auction to assign the credits, it used legislative grants of the credits, which is obviously reciprocal graft for the industries that will benefit him the most, politically.

But even the industries with the global warming credits will eventually be crippled by the caps, unless graft continues to perpetuate the process. Liberals endorse government control of industry even when it's an obvious force for corruption in our government.

I'm no troll, I just see the influence of liberal and conservative idiology in our everyday lives, and long term lives. Sometimes an ideology has useful ideas, and sometimes an ideology has harmful ideas. Both sides tend to have both good and bad ideas, but I think that true conservative/libertarian conservatives have much better ideas, in general.
 
2009-07-31 02:35:14 AM
gregscott: Of course the science wonks are disappointed in a mild tornado season. They can get much better grants if they can seem to support the global warming hoax.

What the hell has this project got to do with "global warming"?
/Former NSSL employee
 
2009-07-31 02:43:52 AM
Tornadoes suck.
 
2009-07-31 02:48:37 AM
These morons are over the place, driving hundreds of miles every day, when all they really need to do is sit still and wait. They're paying for a motel room anyway. The stupid criss-crossing the same area hoping for something is ridiculous. It'll happen eventually.

I watch Storm Chasers. But it's become a modicum of what it was. They are looking for another Greensburg, KS. Hoping for it even. And every time the show ends and they hang their heads in shame, I realize how much (Greensburg) money is being funneled into a pit. The one thing that kept the town alive is gone and will take years to rebuild (natural gas)...if it ever will.

That said, the lookie-loos like their junk food and gas. And I would love to see the TIVII myself. The first TIV was pretty cool!
 
2009-07-31 02:59:01 AM
Ah an oldie ut a goodie subby.
 
2009-07-31 03:01:26 AM
Farker T: Tornadoes suck.

Not really. They are probably the most preferable natural disaster.

Hurricanes: A storm the size of a small country that hits damn near the same area every few years, obliterating everything within a several hundred mile radius. You generaly get plenty of warning, but the massive distruction makes rebuilding a long process.

Flood: Give the river plenty of room and don't have stuff on the lowest land, as Grand Forks learned in 1997, and this won't be much of a problem. However, the damage to farmland, roads, and other infastructure is widespread, requiring lots of repairs over a wide area.

Earthquake: No warning whatsoever, everything within a few hundred miles shakes, falls over, and catches fire. Damage is widespread and recovery a long process.

Tornado: Little or no warning. Even the largest tornados are realtivly small and short lived. Generaly only touching down and wrecking a field of beans and a few power lines. Even if it does hit a populated area, the damage is localized and mostly wind damage, meaning underground infastructure is not damaged from water or seismic movements. Since the damage is very localized, help can be quickly mobilized from nearby areas and recovery is realtivly quick

I've lived through the 97 flood and I say give me a tornado any day.
 
2009-07-31 03:02:11 AM
Well, potentially nothing. But when we have an intense tornado season, or any kind of intense local weather at all, we always get a load of the usual propaganda that it's caused by global warming. (This is a website based on critical examination of crappy news.) These articles are used in non-scientific "We're all gonna die! We're all gonna die!" articles.

I also stated the correlation between global warming advocates and the process of obtaining scientific grants.

I by no means criticize the scientific work by this group of scientists, or even claim any bias in the article. I'm just pointing out what we would expect if the season had been severe.

I support scientific research, especially when it's not corrupted by bias. Do you mean to suggest that scientific research is not acquiring a bias based on the political pseudo science of the global warming scam artists. (I'm not claiming that global warming exists, I'm just questioning the many logical voids in concluding that we must wreak serious damage on human systems to "cure" it.

The world's climate always changes, over time, and human adaptation had better accomodate that fact. The consequence aren't always pretty, but the dream that they can be avoided without massive harm to human systems is completely unproven. If people were seriously concerned on this issue, they would be consistent in strongly supporting nuclear power, for example, which is the only technology likely to have a major positive impact in the next few decades. Liberals should be rushing to minimize the regulative critical path in adopting nuclear energy. It should be the next "space race", not socialized medicine. The stimulus plan should have included at least 100 billion in research, site procurement, legal support, and improvments to 40 year old technology, and research on mitigation of nuclear waste. (Which is already greatly improved in the French technology.)

The article is typically flawed in that it provides little or no technical, statistical, or scientific context or detail.
 
2009-07-31 03:12:00 AM
gregscott:

I also stated made up the correlation between global warming advocates and the process of obtaining scientific grants.

FTFY
 
2009-07-31 03:13:28 AM
Crosshair: I've lived through the 97 flood

Pffft, amateur. You get your stripes by living through the 1993 flood.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov
 
2009-07-31 03:16:46 AM
I'm not bummed out.

/lives in Kansas
 
2009-07-31 03:18:29 AM
Mild tornado season a "bummer" for scientists who were really looking forward to seeing lots of trailer parks get wiped out

As were we all.
 
2009-07-31 03:24:42 AM
Wow. Gregscott has all the answers. I need to be more attentive. He might...I didn't pay attention.
 
2009-07-31 03:37:17 AM
Not only have meterologists who don't buy into environmental doctrines been refused money, they've been fired. Haven't you read the articles in the mainstream media, who largely support environment doctrine? Have you read Al Gore's "Insipid Truth"?
Have you seen Scientific American's adoption of global warming theology? Provide your own citations. If you were interested in science at all, you'ld know that condemnation of global warming agnostics and non-believers is widespread. That's not scientific. We're not talking creationists here, we're talking about the dangers of using unproven global weather models as gospel, and completely betting our lives and standard of living on their predictions. Global systems may be "buffered" by forces the models don't take into account. Global warming could be a fact, but not influenced by humans in any significant manner. Perhaps variations in solar radiation and volconic activity have much more important effects on climate. These are not settled scientific issues, and they should be tested by research by scientists who are not biased by political and popular whims. Consensus doesn't necessary support good science. You might enjoy reading Immanuel Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" if you want to see how personal bias can produce some very remarkable pseudoscience. The man had a few valid grains of truths to his "science". Catastrophism, out of fashion at the time, due to an immature view of evolutionary science. Scientific bias can stagnate years, even centuries of scientific discovery. "Competitive" science, within rational limits is good science.

I've never seen these issues honestly examined in the popular press, even in Scientific American, though I didn't subscribe during the years of codification of global warming theology.
 
2009-07-31 03:41:58 AM
They can come out to California. Trailer parks have increasingly become targets of our wildfire/mudslide cycle.

Someone tell gregscott to calm down, he'll enjoy life more.
 
2009-07-31 03:48:59 AM
Yipes gregscot---calm down...I actually agree with you on most of this rant you have going on. I'm a little simpler and 100% most not likely to go read the things you suggest. Doesn't make me stupid. Gives me common sense. I'm curious how you came to these conclusions without ever coming in contact with the sun. The world will go on.
 
2009-07-31 03:50:36 AM
It's a shame. The housing market could really use a few good tornadoes to take care of excess inventory.
 
2009-07-31 03:51:22 AM
meh. i'm more worried by earthquakes.
 
2009-07-31 03:53:51 AM
gregscott:

WHARRGARBL and complaints that science and scientific journals accept a theory that he does not...

You do realize that until 6 months ago most of the funding for climate research came was ultimately signed off on by appointees of George W. Bush, who's stated position was "it doesn't exist" until late in his administration when he changed it to "it needs more study?"

The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints: 1. Pressure to eliminate the words "climate change", "global warming", or other similar terms from their communications; 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors that "changed the meaning of scientific findings"; 3. Statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented their findings; 4. The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate; 5. New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work; 6. Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings. They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.

In 2003, the White House gutted the climate-change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency. It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, that suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.

After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station and said that Knutson was "too tired" to conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the "White House said no". All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes.

Last year Nasa's top climate scientist, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by Nasa's PR officials that there would be "dire consequences" if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases.

Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US fish and wildlife service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand "the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues".

At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former White House aide who had previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration. Though not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming.
.

There are plenty more examples, but I don't expect much from someone who starts wharrgarbling about climate change after reading an article stating "Meteorologists are attributing the relative calm not to anything dire, like global warming, but to the shifts in the jet stream that happen from time to time."

It's like you went "OMG! An article about weather research! MUST ATTACK UNRELATED ACC RESEARCH!"

Now can we get back to destroying trailer parks?
 
2009-07-31 04:02:55 AM
Norad: Pffft, amateur. You get your stripes by living through the 1993 flood.

Ha, you only had that flood to worry about. We had 8 blizzards before the flood. I delievered newspapers through 7 of them.

Though we both can look down on New Orleans.
 
2009-07-31 04:08:03 AM
Pet peeve hot button rant. Sorry to interrupt your more important amusement. In the classical non-thinking sense of the word. I probably won't subject you to the rant until it's more relevant. Carry on.
 
2009-07-31 04:15:40 AM
God must have heard from the SimCity board of advisors. (NSFW language, scroll down to the bottom)
 
2009-07-31 04:16:07 AM
Bet these dudes get bummed from not being diagnosed with cancer too!
 
2009-07-31 04:22:26 AM
esteban9: gregscott: Of course the science wonks are disappointed in a mild tornado season. They can get much better grants if they can seem to support the global warming hoax.

What the hell has this project got to do with "global warming"?
/Former NSSL employee


This... I think gregscott wanted an uber-troll by bringing up global warming. The VORTEX2 project really has nothing to do with global warming, though, being related to weather, it appears as though gregscott found it a good excuse to rant about something that is only tangentially relevant.

It was terribly bad luck that the project fell during an extremely uncommon and terribly poor (i.e. tornado-less) stretch of May and early June. We only have a handful of opportunities to investigate the things we need to investigate, and it doesn't help anyone or anything (well, except the local economies in many of the small towns the armada visited)
for us to assemble the people and equipment only to have mother nature refuse to give up her secrets.


/ Any link between global climate change and tornado occurrence is currently very unclear and possibly trivial
// VORTEX2 participant
 
2009-07-31 04:23:15 AM
Norad: Crosshair: I've lived through the 97 flood

Pffft, amateur. You get your stripes by living through the 1993 flood.


I WAS THERE! it was pretty awesome. (Iowa native)
 
2009-07-31 04:33:03 AM
/ Any link between global climate change and tornado occurrence is currently very unclear and possibly trivial
// VORTEX2 participant

I totally agree. You evidently didn't read my rant supporting science but condemning pseudo-scientific bias. Sorry to respond again, but at least it's short this time.
 
2009-07-31 04:51:10 AM
GAT_00: That's actually quite sad since Vortex-2 had such a good start, but nothing since the first couple of weeks. I think they still got some good data early, but that's mostly it.

Actually almost the entire season sucked until June which is very late in the season. The Vortex 2 team didn't see a tornado until June 5th.

ShellKS: These morons are over the place, driving hundreds of miles every day, when all they really need to do is sit still and wait. They're paying for a motel room anyway. The stupid criss-crossing the same area hoping for something is ridiculous. It'll happen eventually.

I watch Storm Chasers. But it's become a modicum of what it was. They are looking for another Greensburg, KS. Hoping for it even. And every time the show ends and they hang their heads in shame, I realize how much (Greensburg) money is being funneled into a pit. The one thing that kept the town alive is gone and will take years to rebuild (natural gas)...if it ever will.

That said, the lookie-loos like their junk food and gas. And I would love to see the TIVII myself. The first TIV was pretty cool!


If you think the show Storm Chasers is anything like real storm chasing...yea...good on you. Hope you get out of 2nd grade real soon there sonny.
 
2009-07-31 05:07:06 AM
WxGuy1:

// VORTEX2 participant

I notice you're going back next year. I assume that the bulk of the cost each year is in getting the participants together and driving around, but will this possibly mean you'll have a slightly larger budget next year since you won't be doing as much analysis this year?

Sorry to hear about it, regardless.
 
2009-07-31 05:12:46 AM
I live here...I'm not dumb enough to chase anymore. I just said I'd like to see the TIVII. Glad that you've learned to put words together...now try to make sense of them.
 
2009-07-31 05:30:41 AM
gregscott: Well, potentially nothing. But when we have an intense tornado season, or any kind of intense local weather at all, we always get a load of the usual propaganda that it's caused by global warming. (This is a website based on critical examination of crappy news.) These articles are used in non-scientific "We're all gonna die! We're all gonna die!" articles.

I also stated the correlation between global warming advocates and the process of obtaining scientific grants.

I by no means criticize the scientific work by this group of scientists, or even claim any bias in the article. I'm just pointing out what we would expect if the season had been severe.

I support scientific research, especially when it's not corrupted by bias. Do you mean to suggest that scientific research is not acquiring a bias based on the political pseudo science of the global warming scam artists. (I'm not claiming that global warming exists, I'm just questioning the many logical voids in concluding that we must wreak serious damage on human systems to "cure" it.

The world's climate always changes, over time, and human adaptation had better accomodate that fact. The consequence aren't always pretty, but the dream that they can be avoided without massive harm to human systems is completely unproven. If people were seriously concerned on this issue, they would be consistent in strongly supporting nuclear power, for example, which is the only technology likely to have a major positive impact in the next few decades. Liberals should be rushing to minimize the regulative critical path in adopting nuclear energy. It should be the next "space race", not socialized medicine. The stimulus plan should have included at least 100 billion in research, site procurement, legal support, and improvments to 40 year old technology, and research on mitigation of nuclear waste. (Which is already greatly improved in the French technology.)

The article is typically flawed in that it provides little or no technical, statistical, or scientific context or detail.


You're preaching to the choir about the media's coverage of scientific projects or developments. They touch only the surface, and need to "sex up" any story.

And I agree, of course, that climate change, being the hot button in today's society, affects science and grants for research. Science and society are of course intermingled...which means that there is a lot more funding for climate change study than 10-20 years ago. This means that grant proposals are increasingly going after such pots of money. That does not mean that if a scientist obtains a grant to study global warming that he/she will succumb to outside pressure to bias his/her findings.

But it also does occur that think tanks with a political agenda will fund or play up findings and scientists who have come out with results favoring their point of view. These kinds of "scams" one must be on guard for.
 
2009-07-31 05:39:37 AM
WxGuy1: esteban9: gregscott: Of course the science wonks are disappointed in a mild tornado season. They can get much better grants if they can seem to support the global warming hoax.

What the hell has this project got to do with "global warming"?
/Former NSSL employee

This... I think gregscott wanted an uber-troll by bringing up global warming. The VORTEX2 project really has nothing to do with global warming, though, being related to weather, it appears as though gregscott found it a good excuse to rant about something that is only tangentially relevant.

It was terribly bad luck that the project fell during an extremely uncommon and terribly poor (i.e. tornado-less) stretch of May and early June. We only have a handful of opportunities to investigate the things we need to investigate, and it doesn't help anyone or anything (well, except the local economies in many of the small towns the armada visited)
for us to assemble the people and equipment only to have mother nature refuse to give up her secrets.


/ Any link between global climate change and tornado occurrence is currently very unclear and possibly trivial
// VORTEX2 participant


Yah, I guess I bit on the troll bait, but only a little. I've been on the side of atmospheric physics my whole career and don't get into the climatology debate since I don't know enough about it to comment intelligently. But many who know far less about the atmosphere are motivated by political propaganda and feel the need to comment. These are the kind of people who gain far too much attention in the media than they deserve. Oh well, that's the media for you....
/NSSL Storm Electricity and Cloud Physics group, '89-'92 (defunct)
/Across the street with NEXRAD program during VORTEX1
 
2009-07-31 05:39:57 AM
Just for kicks, I was close enoough to Andover (F5--1991) to see it and my home was in the hop scotch of the Haysville tornado of 1999. Wichita--just east of I35 south of Lincoln street.

We go underground when it is necessary. REALLY necessary. And my family is from the Greensburg/Haviland area. Farmers and business owners. Don't talk about what you don't know.
 
2009-07-31 05:43:18 AM
I don't mind the fact that there haven't been that many tornadoes; the fewer times I have to be dragged out of bed by the sirens, the better.

As a bonus, the weather guys say the jet-stream shift is the reason why we (Kansas) have been getting Seattle's weather instead of our normal July climate. And on the other end of the trade, my friends in Oregon get to learn what triple-digit temperatures feel like... it's a win/win situation.
 
2009-07-31 06:11:48 AM
Talk about a callus thing to be "bummed" about. Oh, MANY people did not los ethier lives or the lives of loved ones and millions in property in towns hit...

Those scientists need to eat a mandatory bowl of dick, every day, for 5 years minimum.
 
2009-07-31 06:41:14 AM
My cousin called me this week to tell me about the tornado that just passed through - in the Poconos! First time she ever saw a funnel cloud and it scared the tar out of her. She had no real damage, but a couple of barns nearby were reduced to tooth picks along with other major damage. No injuries, thank FSM.

We're not supposed to have tornadoes in Pennsylvania! WTF is going on? I'm waiting for Fred Phelps to arrive up there and tell us why god is punishing Pennsylvania.
 
2009-07-31 06:47:29 AM
TheMega: Talk about a callus thing to be "bummed" about. Oh, MANY people did not los ethier lives or the lives of loved ones and millions in property in towns hit...

Those scientists need to eat a mandatory bowl of dick, every day, for 5 years minimum.


The point was to get measurements near tornadoes to help predict them more accurately in the future and prevent the loss of lives. It mattered not whether these storms hit cities or not. There's also not infinite amount of money available to do this, so it's not just like "oh well, we'll just have to do it next year." It was hard enough to get enough funding to just get the project off the ground this year for a single month.
 
2009-07-31 07:01:34 AM
mandingueiro: your homes are on wheels! moooove, f*ckers!

/stolen by mencia.
//i lol'd.


FTFY.

If there's a hurricane in Florida, a tornado in Texas, or a divorce in Alabama, someone's losing a trailer.
 
2009-07-31 07:25:52 AM
How did a tornado thread get 'jacked by the global warming assholes?

/just sayin'
//Mencia sucks
///sweat & dead man's balls
 
2009-07-31 07:32:16 AM
Epiphany: I'm not bummed out.

/lives in Kansas


Hey I want my big tornadoes in South Central PA but they haven't started yet. South Central PA is in the exact middle of the "Little Tornado Ally" of the North East.

/Has seen two tornadoes develop in her backyard.
//Wants to see a real flying cow because tornadoes make that happen.
 
2009-07-31 07:39:33 AM
gregscott: nope. I really believe it's a hoax, particularly the unsupported step in logic that we can do anything about human-caused warming without going back to subsistance farming with the related massive human die off.

Obama is set on wrecking the economy so we can lead the world into oblivion. Passage of the Cap and Tax bill is a clear indication. It's also quite factual that global warning skeptics do not get grants in the current political environment. Almost everybody who is against Cap and Tax is pretty much ok with this line of reasoning. And there are lots of folks who sincerely believe this, including me. No troll, just stating the obvious here, at least from my point of view.

Gore's labeling of global warning skeptics as "deniers" is an obvious attempt to demonize the skeptics with the same irrational crap associated with Holocaust deniers. Sure, Gore's got a huge vested financial interest in the fraud. The Cap and Tax bill didn't use an auction to assign the credits, it used legislative grants of the credits, which is obviously reciprocal graft for the industries that will benefit him the most, politically.

But even the industries with the global warming credits will eventually be crippled by the caps, unless graft continues to perpetuate the process. Liberals endorse government control of industry even when it's an obvious force for corruption in our government.

I'm no troll, I just see the influence of liberal and conservative idiology in our everyday lives, and long term lives. Sometimes an ideology has useful ideas, and sometimes an ideology has harmful ideas. Both sides tend to have both good and bad ideas, but I think that true conservative/libertarian conservatives have much better ideas, in general.


Quick note:

If you have to write "This is not a troll" multiple times in your Boobies in a thread, it's a troll.

I especially liked "Obama is set on wrecking the economy so we can lead the world into oblivion." It's fun to imagine the cabinet meeting where someone has that as bullet points on a chart. "Right now, we're 153rd in oblivion. That's unacceptable in this great country. This is America, and we're going to lead the way, and set the example for our friends and allies."
 
2009-07-31 07:41:23 AM
Odd that you question the assertion that this is a commonly accepted correlation:

Science News: Global Warming Will Bring Violent Storms And Tornadoes, NASA Predicts (new window)
Google "Global Warming" "tornadoes" to see lots of other examples.

I'm not denying the "facts" purported by the article. I'm sure the models cited do predict the effect, and consider it a possibility that the models may be correct on this particular point, if Global Warming occurs.

Sorry to post again, but being called an asshole isn't a reasonable argument. The tirade is marginally appropriate for the subject.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report