Last night, about 1 AM Kentucky time, a single storm generated tornadoes that touched down and traveled some 210 miles across 5 states.  Many other storms that were part of the same storm system generated tornadoes and high wind, creating damage in many parts of those states.

Joe Biden gave remarks this morning on the devastation and took questions from the press.  They took this opportunity to ask him about Climate Change.  Of course -- they would, wouldn't they?

Rescue and Aid efforts are still underway, and these asshats need to push a political agenda.  Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Our media is broken.

Biden uses tornado tragedy to push
climate agenda, suggests storms
are ‘consequence of the warming’

President Biden on Saturday addressed the fatal weather that ravaged parts of the South
and Midwest and used the tragedy to further his own beliefs on climate change.

While speaking to reporters and virtually assessing the tornado damage from Wilmington,
Delaware, Biden was asked whether he "could conclude that these storms and the intensity
have to do with climate change."

"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. "The specific
impact on these specific storms, I can't say at this point."

"I'm going to be asking the EPA and others to take a look at that," Biden added. "The fact is
that we all know everything is more intense when the climate is warming. Everything. And
obviously it has some impact here, but I can't give you a quantitative read on that."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-uses-tornado-tragedy-push-climate-agenda-suggests-storms-consequence-warming

And what if the storms were a result of climate change?

And what if the storms were a result of climate change?

Please ask yourself a more reasonable question:

If Climate Change is the cause of the tornadoes, what could the US have done to stop them?

(Hint:  These are not the first tornadoes in the US.)

(Bonus hint:  The climate has always been changing, notwithstanding the behaviors -- or existence -- of humans).

(Grand Prize Hint:  All the experts, including Al Gore, agree that if everything in the Paris Climate Accord was done tomorrow, it would still not stop the Climate Change apocalypse he and scientists predict is going to occur by end of this century.  In Al Gore's words, "No, it won't solve Climate Change, but it sends a message."  To whom?  God?)

Please ask yourself a more reasonable question:

My question is the key question, before anything else. Either man made climate change contributed or it didn't. Complaining about democrats pushing a climate change agenda is only unreasonable if the tornados are unrelated. If the tornados are related then their pushing the climate change agenda is perfectly reasonable.

My question is the key question, before anything else. Either man made climate change contributed or it didn't. Complaining about democrats pushing a climate change agenda is only unreasonable if the tornados are unrelated. If the tornados are related then their pushing the climate change agenda is perfectly reasonable.

Never go full retard...

What do u mean u people...

Lance...i mean nance....

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My question is the key question, before anything else. Either man made climate change contributed or it didn't. Complaining about democrats pushing a climate change agenda is only unreasonable if the tornados are unrelated. If the tornados are related then their pushing the climate change agenda is perfectly reasonable.

There's been no science-related theories nor studies since the tornadoes happened to even try to suggest they are related to climate change.  In fact, the severity of storms and damage they cause has been steadily declining the past few decades.

1990s saw 253 reported tornadoes.

2000s saw 223 tornadoes.

2010's saw 159.

So, it appears there is an INVERSE RELATIONSHIP between the number of tornadoes in the US and the reported rise in carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, temperatures and Climate Change as a whole.  More "climate change" = fewer tornadoes.

Storms this severe may not happen often, but there's no evidence that storms like this have never happened before.  We only have direct data for the past 70 years.  We do know that massive tornadoes have existed before now, and that these were potentially less destructive individually than the largest ones ever recorded.

The real question is HOW MUCH does manmade carbon emissions contribute to overall climate change?

Everything I see says we produce about 10-14% of the carbon contributed to the climate change total.

Given that the amount of carbon emissions we generate will never be close to zero, and we can't control the non-manmade carbon production, what do you estimate the change in green house gases would be if we were to cut human contributions in half?  Do you think a 7% drop would matter?

We can't even predict the weather so how can we influence weather? To think that we are is hubris. The Earth is billions of years old and we existed for a mere fraction of the Earth's life and based on OUR recorded data and our small understanding of the Earth we THINK we are causing the climate to change? Another overlooked aspect is that the universe is always expanding; so that brings the question: What stays the same?

We can't even predict the weather so how can we influence weather? To think that we are is hubris. The Earth is billions of years old and we existed for a mere fraction of the Earth's life and based on OUR recorded data and our small understanding of the Earth we THINK we are causing the climate to change? Another overlooked aspect is that the universe is always expanding; so that brings the question: What stays the same?

We have geological evidence that the glaciers moved, the Earth warmed and cooled, and every other "feature" of climate change the politicians and junk scientists now say is "man-made". 

And yet, those same people still fly their private planes, use chartered flights, and drive gas guzzling SUVs.  Until they start acting like there's an "existential threat," I'm going with "there is no existential threat."

As more and more people buy into this climate change BS a certain group of people will make tons of money.

The earth has been going through climate changes for billions of years.

Maybe mankind will eventually die off due to the changing climate, but it's not gonna be because of our contributions to the carbon footprint.

And another life form will crawl out of the muck when all is said and done.

Nature is King.  All the fear mongering scientists, politicians, alternate energy conglomerates, and joe biden and his hyena is just full of sh*t.

Big astroid hit dinosaurs who had no carbon emmissions. Thus carbon emmissions help deflect big astroids because we havent been hit by one. #science

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It's the end of the world folks.
That's why people are doing whatever they want.

There's been no science-related theories nor studies since the tornadoes happened to even try to suggest they are related to climate change.  In fact, the severity of storms and damage they cause has been steadily declining the past few decades.

1990s saw 253 reported tornadoes.

2000s saw 223 tornadoes.

2010's saw 159.

So, it appears there is an INVERSE RELATIONSHIP between the number of tornadoes in the US and the reported rise in carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, temperatures and Climate Change as a whole.  More "climate change" = fewer tornadoes.

Storms this severe may not happen often, but there's no evidence that storms like this have never happened before.  We only have direct data for the past 70 years.  We do know that massive tornadoes have existed before now, and that these were potentially less destructive individually than the largest ones ever recorded.

The real question is HOW MUCH does manmade carbon emissions contribute to overall climate change?

Everything I see says we produce about 10-14% of the carbon contributed to the climate change total.

Given that the amount of carbon emissions we generate will never be close to zero, and we can't control the non-manmade carbon production, what do you estimate the change in green house gases would be if we were to cut human contributions in half?  Do you think a 7% drop would matter?

I did hear on the news that fewer tornadoes were being reported so that would go against the climate change theory. But number is only one part of the calculation, severity would need to be taken into account.

Damage is not a perfect way to measure severity though. As time passes and homes are constructed better a damage reduction could give a false impression of the tornado severity.

Please note that I am not arguing climate change is playing a role, only saying that this is the first question to address. I do think we are affecting the climate but I haven't seen anything convincing yet that it is affecting tornados.


As for your last question, I am particularly interested in carbon capture technology where we can pull carbon from the air. Still in the developmental phase but they have working models and this has potential to be able to control carbon levels to a desired level.

We can't even predict the weather so how can we influence weather? To think that we are is hubris. The Earth is billions of years old and we existed for a mere fraction of the Earth's life and based on OUR recorded data and our small understanding of the Earth we THINK we are causing the climate to change? Another overlooked aspect is that the universe is always expanding; so that brings the question: What stays the same?

We can't predict the weather? We seem to be fairly decent at predicting it. We knew of the big rains that were going to come last week.

We are also able to destroy huge forests and burn huge amounts of wood, fuel, and other chemicals. I don't know how you could argue that we wouldn't be able to affect the climate merely because we haven't been around that long

We can't predict the weather? We seem to be fairly decent at predicting it. We knew of the big rains that were going to come last week.

We are also able to destroy huge forests and burn huge amounts of wood, fuel, and other chemicals. I don't know how you could argue that we wouldn't be able to affect the climate merely because we haven't been around that long

Anyone predicted this?
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/tornadoes-severe-weather-death-toll-kentucky/

I didn't say that time is related to humans affecting the weather or are you just twisting what I said around? Time is relevant when evaluating patterns or any kind of correlating data to come to a conclusion. As I mentioned, we tend to forget the "science" and its theories. We don't know how the universe came to be but we have a hypothesis that is was a singular event that is expanding at this moment. Given that, does anything in our existence remain the same?

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/big-bang/en/

What's This Big Bang All About?
In 1927, an astronomer named Georges Lemaître had a big idea. He said that a very long time ago, the universe started as just a single point. He said the universe stretched and expanded to get as big as it is now, and that it could keep on stretching.

So you are making the correlation between burning things in a forest and the impact of that changing the climate. Source? How do you define a change in climate? What is your standard measurement of "climate change" ? Is it rate of rainfall? Snowfall? Sun? Wind?

We can't even predict the weather so how can we influence weather? To think that we are is hubris. The Earth is billions of years old and we existed for a mere fraction of the Earth's life and based on OUR recorded data and our small understanding of the Earth we THINK we are causing the climate to change? Another overlooked aspect is that the universe is always expanding; so that brings the question: What stays the same?

===========
On a local level, weather prediction is pretty accurate.
I was going to have a family picnic on Dec.5 but on November 30 my neighbor said that the long-range forecast was thunderstorms for that day.
So my kids decided to postpone to Dec.11.

As it turns out, the crummy weather prediction for dec 5 was correct.
So, then the long-range prediction for dec 11 was good.
On dec 11 the weather was absolutely perfect, and we had a good family day.

This really doesn't have anything to do with climate change, but it's a cool story about how a long-range weather forecast saved my family picnic.

Anyone predicted this?
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/tornadoes-severe-weather-death-toll-kentucky/

I didn't say that time is related to humans affecting the weather or are you just twisting what I said around? Time is relevant when evaluating patterns or any kind of correlating data to come to a conclusion. As I mentioned, we tend to forget the "science" and its theories. We don't know how the universe came to be but we have a hypothesis that is was a singular event that is expanding at this moment. Given that, does anything in our existence remain the same?

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/big-bang/en/

What's This Big Bang All About?
In 1927, an astronomer named Georges Lemaître had a big idea. He said that a very long time ago, the universe started as just a single point. He said the universe stretched and expanded to get as big as it is now, and that it could keep on stretching.

So you are making the correlation between burning things in a forest and the impact of that changing the climate. Source? How do you define a change in climate? What is your standard measurement of "climate change" ? Is it rate of rainfall? Snowfall? Sun? Wind?

The point about deforestation and burning things was merely to illustrate that humans are very much able to affect the earth. How much our modification of the earth affects the weather is a more complicated question with all the other variables and what not.