Liberals use deadly tornados to attack Republicans on climate change

[Fishking]

Yeah, to be honest, I am not sure what you are talking about.

You're talking about people not mitigating things that effect the climate. We're doing quite well in the U.S.

The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn’t Need The Paris Climate Accord

The UN says the U.S. is the most successful major country at cutting emissions even after leaving the Paris Climate Accord.

www.forbes.com

So you must've been referencing places like China, not people in Kentucky. Which it wouldn't have mattered anyways because the tornado didn't have anything to do with climate change. Ya'll just using it to weirdly flex that you don't actually care about death and destruction.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You're talking about people not mitigating things that effect the climate. We're doing quite well in the U.S.

The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn’t Need The Paris Climate Accord

The UN says the U.S. is the most successful major country at cutting emissions even after leaving the Paris Climate Accord.

www.forbes.com

So you must've been referencing places like China, not people in Kentucky. Which it wouldn't have mattered anyways because the tornado didn't have anything to do with climate change. Ya'll just using it to weirdly flex that you don't actually care about death and destruction.

This is good and we should increase pressure on China to do the same tbh. I would be supportive of not being willing to buy things from china unless they pay similar to our wages and manufacture things to regulations similar to ours.

 

[Craig234]

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's a Chinese hoax intended to harm the American economy, right?

Maybe we can get Republicans to oppose climate change if we tell them it was created in a Chinese lab and we can blame them.

 

[Jay59]

The logical corollary to good information being good information is that bad information is bad information.

Missed that point. Oh, well. I can lead you to facts but I cannot make you think.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Missed that point. Oh, well. I can lead you to facts but I cannot make you think.

I understood the implication, but the implication was wrong, so I ignored it.

The implication being that I am over selective or hypocritical.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

completely on par? One happened in Spring(when tornadoes are common) and one happened in December when tornadoes are very very uncommon.

Here’s where tornadoes typically form in December across the United States - ustornadoes.com

Tornadoes tend to focus their wrath on the mid-South and sometimes the Mississippi Valley in December.

www.ustornadoes.com

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

Yes, there is. Is the issue worth discussing with you? It seems clearly not.

Feel free to tell us when climate was “normal”.

 

[ClaraD]

Here’s where tornadoes typically form in December across the United States - ustornadoes.com

Tornadoes tend to focus their wrath on the mid-South and sometimes the Mississippi Valley in December.

www.ustornadoes.com

I asked you to show me one that had stayed on the ground and was this intense in December....in this time of year, they are usually under a ton of snow.

 

[jnug]

In California is your qualifier . 1910 fires burned all across the country and burned nearly all of Idaho up

So what.

The 2011 Texas fire burned over four million acres over a week. The 1910 burned over 3M acres over 2 days. I think you will find that there was not much forest management going on in the 19th century and early in the 20th century. That means denser forest, faster burns, more acres over a shorter period of time. Firefighting itself was not as advanced in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

In fact, there is something that can be said for the 1910. It forced considerable changes to forest management even in remote areas.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

I asked you to show me one that had stayed on the ground and was this intense in December....in this time of year, they are usually under a ton of snow.

The hurricane a hundred years ago and the one that just occurred are virtually identical with both staying on the ground well over 200 miles . If a few miles difference is all it takes to convince you man is changing the climate it proves you desperately want to believe that and will grasp at any straw.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

I think you will find that there was not much forest management going on in the 19th century and early in the 20th century. That means denser forest, faster burns, more acres over a shorter period of time.

You have that exactly upside down. After the 1910 fires the FS declared war on forest fires and put them out before they could get going. This led to increased ladder fuel that usually burns off on a regular basis before there’s enough of it to get fires into the crowns of mature trees. A hundred years of fire suppression is the reason for today’s constant catastrophic fires.
The 1910 fire was an anomaly and the result of an extreme drought period.

 

[Variant]

Okay, how do you think that story proves you point? Please be specific.

The earth is warming and more extreme weather is apparent. I'm not sure how you could miss it.

 

[Lisa]

Rand Paul Opposition to Previous Disaster Relief Resurfaces as He Seeks Aid for Kentucky

Rand Paul Opposition to Previous Disaster Relief Resurfaces as He Seeks Aid for Kentucky 12/11/21 Critics slammed Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for requesting federal aid to help his state recover from devastating tornadoes after he previously voted against relief when other states were struck...

debatepolitics.com

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are hypocrites to the core. Their idea of "It's great when it benefits me but screw you when it's someone else" is very predictable.

Conservatives in Kentucky oppose the government and "socialist policies" so tell them to pull up their bootstraps and do it themselves, or does that only apply to others?

BTW, Where is their omnipotent and loving god now? Why didn't he answer their prayers and save their lives by stopping the tornadoes? Where was their pro-life god when they needed him? He let 40+ people die but he saved the bible on the bookcase. I think the people would rather that those 40 people were still alive and they were out a $25.00 bible instead.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

The earth is warming and more extreme weather is apparent. I'm not sure how you could miss it.

You see what you want to see. Historical weather is against you on this.

 

[Variant]

China is a country that probably has tornadoes.

Not as many. We Americans are blessed with the country that has the most of any nation.

 

[Variant]

You see what you want to see. Historical weather is against you on this.

No, it isn't.

Is climate change fueling extreme weather? – DW – 04/11/2018

Pinning down blame for complex weather events isn't straightforward. But cutting-edge science is rapidly shrinking the space to argue that the crazy weather we're experiencing isn't due to greenhouse gas emissions.

www.dw.com

 

[mrjurrs]

It doesn't get much worse than this. Liberals politicizing a natural disaster with death and destruction.Now tornadoes are Republicans fault. Can you guys go any lower?


""All I know is that the intensity of the weather across the board has some impacts as a consequence of the warming of the planet and climate change," Biden said.

Former ESPN host Jemele Hill encouraged Democrats to use the tornado as an opportunity to damage Sen. Paul politically.

"We know @RandPaul is a heartless hypocrite," Hill tweeted. "The people in Kentucky deserve the relief regardless of their buffoonish leadership, but if the Dems don’t use this against him and his party in the future, it is a missed opportunity."


"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell used the tragedy to take a shot at Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who represents Kentucky, accusing him of not caring about Americans who are in need."

"But do not for one second forget that @RandPaul has voted against helping most Americans most times they’re in need."

Liberals use deadly tornados to attack Republicans on climate change

Several liberals on Twitter, including politicians and celebrities, pointed the finger at climate change and Republicans following a devastating tornado in western Kentucky that killed at least 70 people.

www.foxnews.com

Yeah, we've had tornadoes stay on the ground for 200 miles all the time...

 

[jnug]

You have that exactly upside down. After the 1910 fires the FS declared war on forest fires and put them out before they could get going. This led to increased ladder fuel that usually burns off on a regular basis before there’s enough of it to get fires into the crowns of mature trees. A hundred years of fire suppression is the reason for today’s constant catastrophic fires.
The 1910 fire was an anomaly and the result of an extreme drought period.

and so increased western heat and draought has nothing to do with it? Is that your argument? How low does Lake Mead have to get before you open your eyes.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

No, it isn't.

Is climate change fueling extreme weather? – DW – 04/11/2018

Pinning down blame for complex weather events isn't straightforward. But cutting-edge science is rapidly shrinking the space to argue that the crazy weather we're experiencing isn't due to greenhouse gas emissions.

www.dw.com

Using since 1980 to quantify increased so called extreme weather is a joke. Why 1980? Because it fits the narrative that’s why. AGW so called science bastardized real science when it decided to try to prove a hypothesis instead of test it.

 

[Variant]

Using since 1980 to quantify increased so called extreme weather is a joke. Why 1980? Because it fits the narrative that’s why. AGW so called science bastardized real science when it decided to try to prove a hypothesis instead of test it.

1900 is where the graph starts (please try a bit harder). Going further back would mean we couldn't possibly have accurate global data.

 

[Lisa]

Using since 1980 to quantify increased so called extreme weather is a joke. Why 1980? Because it fits the narrative that’s why. AGW so called science bastardized real science when it decided to try to prove a hypothesis instead of test it.

The graph started in 1900. Reading is fundamental.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

and so increased western heat and draought has nothing to do with it? Is that your argument? How low does Lake Mead have to get before you open your eyes.

How many big cities and farms have to draw water from lake mead until it will never be able to keep up with demand? We are there.

 

[Lisa]

How many big cities and farms have to draw water from lake mead until it will never be able to keep up with demand? We are there.

We already cannot keep up with the demand for fresh water in the American SW. It's only a matter of time.

What is that supposed to disprove about AGW?

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

1900 is where the graph starts (please try a bit harder). Going further back would mean we couldn't possibly have accurate global data.

1900 is where the graph starts (please try a bit harder). Going further back would mean we couldn't possibly have accurate global data.

From link you provided.


“Scientists used data from insurance company Munich Re to show that storms and events such as floods and droughts — and the costs resulting from them — have been on the rise since 1980”

The graph from 1900 is useless. The data from storms that far back is incomplete at best.

 

[Variant]

From link you provided.


“Scientists used data from insurance company Munich Re to show that storms and events such as floods and droughts — and the costs resulting from them — have been on the rise since 1980”

The graph from 1900 is useless. The data from storms that far back us incomplete at best.

Ok fine. lets not use any data. Then we can just make up whatever we like like you do.

Namely this:

You see what you want to see. Historical weather is against you on this.

You contradicted what I said. I posted data that shows it is true, you disagree but you've posted no data.

So, you believe (simultaneously somehow) that historical data contradicts what I am saying AND that it is so incomplete that it can't be trusted (because it shows exactly what I said to be true).

So, who cares what you think?

Anyone? Can I get a show of hands as to how many people are feeling convinced by this guys personal incredulity?