That they climate change is causing more turbulent weather.
Where did you see in that article that the people who reject the science caused the tornadoes?

This is what I got from the article... Thinkprogress thinks that C02 is 'greenhouse pollution'.
That and yes ;they make a bizarre and irrelevant connection between the votes taken by those States Congressional delegations and the tornados .

The latest "deniers "??

Craig Fugate, administrator of FEMA and Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

Quote:

---

the stronger-than-usual tornadoes affecting the southern states were actually predicted from examining the planet's climatological patterns, specifically those related to the La Nina phenomenon.

"We knew it was going to be a big tornado year," he said. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: "It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet."

---

Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate: officials - FRANCE 24

We should stay on topic. Start another thread if you wish.

Thus the site moderator spoketh.

Correct. Do it.

Bwaaa haaa haaa .
This is Ex's OP and he brought up the climate change angle.
I'll gladly comply if he makes such a request.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This is what I got from the article.....Thinkprogress thinks that C02 is 'greenhouse pollution'.
That and yes ;they make a bizzare and irrelevent connection between the votes taken by those States Congressional delegations and the tornados .

---

Hi Tom,

I think you are right. Perhaps the article is intended as tongue-in-cheek.

It's a bit like saying the Linconshire ( Newton's birth place) city council has voted to reject Einstein's theory of Relativity because they reject the possibility that space can be curved.

Tut

A bit of a tongue in cheek response Tut .
It of course assumes the connection of the Congressional delegation voting on a position based on their 'denial' rather than other considerations like budgetary .

... That and the difference between an established proven theory like 'Relativity' opposed to a very debatable hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

a bit of a tongue in cheek response Tut .
It of course assumes the connection of the Congressional delegation voting on a position based on their 'denial' rather than other considerations like budgetary .

....That and the difference between an established proven theory like 'Relativity' opposed to a very debatable hypothesis.

---

Hi Tom,

Sounds like you have made a reasonable interpretation of the article to me.

As for the science of climate change... I'm not going there again.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ah, the standard No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia statement. How I miss thee.

---

I like your analogy particularly the part of "no true democracy would start a war". This argument can be used against BO on so many levels but I will let you think of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I like your analogy particularly the part of "no true democracy would start a war". This argument can be used against BO on so many levels but I will let you think of them

---

Correct. Obama is more like Bush than one could ever have imagined.
Just a note: I never used any analogy that used the words "no true democracy would start a war".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Correct. Obama is more like Bush than one could ever have imagined.
Just a note: I never used any analogy that used the words "no true democracy would start a war".

---

They are embedded in the article, should be careful to read your example

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

They are embedded in the article, should be careful to read your example

---

Then it's best to use text that refers to the article's mention of it, so instead of saying "I like your analogy particularly the part.. " it's best to say "I like the analogy they make... " and quote the link, not my words. Thanks.

Now don't go allover PC on me NK

Hello again,

I've been thinking... Does anybody really believe that Hawaii is part of the United States?? Come on. They're obviously, not American. More likely, Samoan... Maybe even, Chinese...

So, I wrote a letter to the Governor of Hawaii and asked him to produce his statehood papers... He hasn't responded. What's he hiding? Why doesn't he just show it? What's on it he doesn't want us to see?

I've sent a couple of investigators over there to get to the bottom of it. What they tell me so far isn't good... It looks like Kenya bought Hawaii when we weren't looking...

excon

Well there you are ex and you can kick those other pretenders Peutro Rica out while you are at it, they are hispanic don't you know and could never be true americans and how about Alaska and Lousiana, you bought those and New Mexico, California, Nevada and Texas, you stole those. Doesn't leave much that is authentic does it? Utah maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

and New Mexico, California, Nevada and Texas, you stole those. Doesn't leave much that is authentic does it? Utah maybe?

---

Don't mess with Texas, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Don't mess with Texas, dude.

---

What a tired meaningless old saying to trot out. What does it actually mean? "Nothing" is the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

What a tired meaningless old saying to trot out. What does it actually mean? "Nothing" is the answer.

---

Another useless contribution by the site monitor.