Apr 13, 2012 -- 2:50PM, paeng wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 9:58AM, Bodean wrote:

Like I said earlier paeng ... BEST is not finished, and thus it hasn't proved anything [currently it has only incorporated land temps].  Second, BEST does not deal with "cause and effect", it's just a temp metric.

Very different from what deniers were saying while they were funding the study, right? Even the project leader was surprised by their own results.

 

NO .. it is NOT different from what the realists were saying while funding the study.  The realists knew, unlike you .. that it was simple a temperature metric, and not a piece of evidence pointing to any significance of CO2.  The study was supported in hopes that some of the flaws associated with the temp record could be addressed.

More anecdotal evidence... (If someone supplies 1,000,000 anecdotes, is it still "anecdotal?")

Today is the second time ever that the Storm Prediction Center has issued a high-risk warning more than 24 hours in advance. The first one was in April 2006; nearly 100 tornadoes tore across the south. A dozen people died and 1,000 homes were damaged in Tennessee.

The weather service is now testing words such as "mass devastation," ''unsurvivable" and "catastrophic" aimed at getting more people to take heed. The warnings are being experimented with in Kansas and Missouri. The "life-threatening" warning for this round of storms, despite the dire language, was not part of that effort but just the most accurate way to describe what was expected, a weather service spokeswoman said.

Maybe the weather service using such unprecedented language is just part of the plot to scare people, d'ya think?

The worst conditions are projected to hit late Saturday afternoon between Oklahoma City and Salina, Kan. Other areas too could see severe storms with baseball-sized hail and winds of up to 70 mph. The warning includes pats of Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.

news.yahoo.com/severe-us-weather-why-war...

We can now see that the Bible's words are literally true: we have sowed the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.

Ya See Cat .. this is the problem.  Just like this "weather prediction", what actually happens does not always match what the "MODEL" says.  We find the same problem in CAGW, and it is the CRUX of the argument.  MODELS ARE NOT ACTUAL DATA!!!!!  The entire CAGW story is bolstered primarily on MODELS, not on real, hard, empiric evidence.  NAS, and IPCC both give way too much credence to the MODELS, and not enough credence to the actual climate DATA!

SO .. if no tornados break out in the high-risk area .. what does that say??

It's already started.

news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/midwest-sto...

Man, this is gonna be bad.

Apr 14, 2012 -- 5:07PM, catboxer wrote:

Ya See Cat .. this is the problem.  Just like this "weather prediction", what actually happens does not always match what the "MODEL" says.  We find the same problem in CAGW, and it is the CRUX of the argument.  MODELS ARE NOT ACTUAL DATA!!!!!  The entire CAGW story is bolstered primarily on MODELS, not on real, hard, empiric evidence.  NAS, and IPCC both give way too much credence to the MODELS, and not enough credence to the actual climate DATA!

SO .. if no tornados break out in the high-risk area .. what does that say??

It's already started.

news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/midwest-sto...

Man, this is gonna be bad.

Hey Cat ...

"It's possible to issue earlier warnings because improvements in storm modeling  and technology are letting forecasters predict storms earlier and with greater  confidence, said Chris Vaccaro, a spokesman for the National Weather Service."

So .. tell me again how this prediction is a canary in the coal mine for Global Warming??

Apr 13, 2012 -- 4:31PM, Bodean wrote:

Yes .. it is based on the false premise that CO2 is a pollutant.  CO2 CAN"T be "part of the pollution" you want to avoid, unless you consider it a pollutant.

BTW .. I don't give a rhodents rectum about what NAS says. ...nor the IPCC.  There is nothing infallible about either.  More specifically, both give way too much credence to MODEL data.  I prefer empiric data. .... like the data that shows the Climate is not cooperating with the MODEL predicitons.

The problem isn't that CO2 is a pollutant but the effect of such on temperature.

Of course you don't give a "rodent's rectum" about what the NAS or the IPCC says, never minding the fact that the former is what even some deniers argue is the "gold standard" of science review. You very much prefer trolling and fooling ignorant forum members into believing you.

The rest of your post is utter nonsense. You argue that nothing is "infallible," but that applies to your claims, too.

The truth is that not only NAS but even BEST, which deniers supported, are now turning against you, and they are all using "empiric data" and models that are not meant to "cooperate with the model predictions." That is why the only thing left for you is to rehash outdated claims (like the trash you've been spreading about climategate), resort to name calling (leftist), and other gibberish.