nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I just call it fools fuel. ~30% pithier, ~200% more accurate.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Presidential Daily Brief for May 29, 2019
Tornadoes Ravage Midwest, Injuring Scores
The Kansas City, Missouri, area was the latest to be hit during a 12-day stretch that’s seen at least eight twisters strafe the Midwest — the first such series since 1980. Ohio’s governor declared a state of emergency in three counties, while storms were also confirmed in eastern Pennsylvania. Even parts of New York City and northern New Jersey were issued warnings by the National Weather Service.
What’s causing these tornadoes? While scientists say climate change probably plays a role in their increased frequency, they’re hard-pressed to pinpoint exactly why.
For new readers to this thread who might actually think @jrad6515 is here in good faith, note that he's an almost comical caricature of a climate denier. He hits all of the important notes: says he's a scientist who is open to evidence:Of course you and all of the other science-denying global warming kool-aid drinkers here believe that mythical AGW is causing the greater-than-normal severe weather this month but the reality is that it is the unusual cold this spring in the Midwest that is the cause. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of weather and climate knows that you need a collision of warm air (always present in late spring/early summer) and cold air (unusually cold this year in parts of the Midwest) to cause tornadoes and severe storms. Sorry to rain (pun intended) on your alarmist parade but tornadoes are rare in the tropics where it is much warmer than it is in the Midwest so warm air alone is only half of the equation - not that any of you AGW cultists care. BTW, severe (F3 or greater) tornadoes are becoming less frequent:
![]()
I really believe that you alarmists will be devastated if the earth doesn't burn up or blow away soon. You may be waiting awhile for that, lol.
Complains about his treatment in online discussion and implies that he's "informed" about the topic:With all due respect, I am a triple degreed scientist and graduated at the top of my class. I am a climate change skeptic but I am open to evidence on either side. So do you think I shouldn’t be able to vote?
Yet dishes out similar insults unironically on his own:As soon as you question the AGW orthodoxy you are immediately insulted as a 'denier', then called stupid, and then labelled an oil company shill. If you persist in the debate you will eventually be likened to Hitler.
AGW alarmists score a perfect 10/10 for dangerous cultish behavior.
I challenged you to show proof of AGW, even allowing you to proceed as if the bogus govt. temperature adjustments that you believe in are not bogus.
Take whatever temperature dataset you want (most are bogus as I have already noted) and show me definitive proof that there is a human fingerprint in the temperature record.
Assume for the sake of argument that your bogus temperature "adjustments" are correct.
I am willing to assume for the sake of argument that the largely fake temperature record you love so much is correct.
Assume that your questionable temperature adjustments are correct.
Yet still will not engage in discussion about the data. So I offered again to meet with him here to show how one develops a probabilistic model, but he still hasn't accepted. I've offered over 10 times to join him in a public video chat to show the proof he continues to request, but he hasn't ever accepted.I told him to assume that his bogus adjustments to the temperature record are valid.
It's a waste of time to try to engage with a denier. I just block them so I don't have to read their drivel.For new readers to this thread who might actually think @jrad6515 is here in good faith, note that he's an almost comical caricature of a climate denier. He hits all of the important notes: says he's a scientist who is open to evidence:
Complains about his treatment in online discussion and implies that he's "informed" about the topic:
Yet dishes out similar insults unironically on his own:
He proceeds to repeatedly attack the data and methodologies used for analysis here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Yet when I repeatedly offered to do a live video conference with him to test these cross-discipline methodologies by injecting bad data and checking for cleansing, he continually deflected.
When called out, he decided to move the goalposts and assume that the data methodology was sound, but to try to draw a future conclusion. However, he was unable to say that assumption once without disparaging the data:
Yet still will not engage in discussion about the data. So I offered again to meet with him here to show how one develops a probabilistic model, but he still hasn't accepted. I've offered over 10 times to join him in a public video chat to show the proof he continues to request, but he hasn't ever accepted.
Worthwhile context for anyone that thinks this member has an iota of validity.
For new readers to this thread who might actually think @jrad6515 is here in good faith, note that he's an almost comical caricature of a climate denier. He hits all of the important notes: says he's a scientist who is open to evidence:
Complains about his treatment in online discussion and implies that he's "informed" about the topic:
Yet dishes out similar insults unironically on his own:
He proceeds to repeatedly attack the data and methodologies used for analysis here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Yet when I repeatedly offered to do a live video conference with him to test these cross-discipline methodologies by injecting bad data and checking for cleansing, he continually deflected.
When called out, he decided to move the goalposts and assume that the data methodology was sound, but to try to draw a future conclusion. However, he was unable to say that assumption once without disparaging the data:
Yet still will not engage in discussion about the data. So I offered again to meet with him here to show how one develops a probabilistic model, but he still hasn't accepted. I've offered over 10 times to join him in a public video chat to show the proof he continues to request, but he hasn't ever accepted.
Worthwhile context for anyone that thinks this member has an iota of validity.
The "scientist" thinks we can resolve decades of work in single posts on a forum. You've run away from a true discussion repeatedly, because you know you're outmatched.So you can't refute anything I post and you are still too chicken to post your "proof" of AGW and then have me critique it? Screw the video conference. You have already wasted too much of my time and you can't offer anything other than name-calling - that is obvious. Just lay it all out here where we can ALL see it. What are you afraid of? Put up or shut up.
Of course you and all of the other science-denying global warming kool-aid drinkers here believe that mythical AGW is causing the greater-than-normal severe weather this month but the reality is that it is the unusual cold this spring in the Midwest that is the cause. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of weather and climate knows that you need a collision of warm air (always present in late spring/early summer) and cold air (unusually cold this year in parts of the Midwest) to cause tornadoes and severe storms. Sorry to rain (pun intended) on your alarmist parade but tornadoes are rare in the tropics where it is much warmer than it is in the Midwest so warm air alone is only half of the equation - not that any of you AGW cultists care. BTW, severe (F3 or greater) tornadoes are becoming less frequent:
![]()
I really believe that you alarmists will be devastated if the earth doesn't burn up or blow away soon. You may be waiting awhile for that, lol.
Great Britain records two weeks of coal-free electricity generation
Nice!I quiet like this article from the Guardian because although the actual article was written some time ago it is hooked up to a data source which is updating in real time, so the graph (showing coal-free days) remains current
The power switch: tracking Britain's record coal-free run