For The First Time Since 1969, No US Tornadoes Reported In March

[mamooth]

None of those links showed anyone predicted more tornadoes right now, and a couple even had someone saying there's no such effect.

You're just flailing. You're not even reading your own links.

 

[westwall]

None of those links showed anyone predicted more tornadoes right now, and a couple even had someone saying there's no such effect.

You're just flailing. You're not even reading your own links.

Ummm, yes they do little liar. I suggest you actually read at least one of the links before you make a complete ass of yourself....ooops. Too late

 

[CrusaderFrank]

None of those links showed anyone predicted more tornadoes right now, and a couple even had someone saying there's no such effect.

You're just flailing. You're not even reading your own links.

So, you decided to outright lie about whats in the links.

Perfect

 

[westwall]

None of those links showed anyone predicted more tornadoes right now, and a couple even had someone saying there's no such effect.

You're just flailing. You're not even reading your own links.

So, you decided to outright lie about whats in the links.

Perfect

well, he is an admiral you know. They can read super duper fast......not!

 

[mamooth]

Since you're making the claim your links support you, you need to support it. Quote the parts supporting you. Raise your batting average from .000.

You don't have to, of course, but if you won't, everyone will draw the appropriate conclusion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since you're making the claim your links support you, you need to support it. Quote the parts supporting you. Raise your batting average from .000.

You don't have to, of course, but if you won't, everyone will draw the appropriate conclusion.

Actually the appropriate conclusion is you got caught in a lie and think if you just keep lying you will get past it.

 

[westwall]

Since you're making the claim your links support you, you need to support it. Quote the parts supporting you. Raise your batting average from .000.

You don't have to, of course, but if you won't, everyone will draw the appropriate conclusion.

Actually the appropriate conclusion is you got caught in a lie and think if you just keep lying you will get past it.

Just ignore the troll. He knows he's a troll. We KNOW he's a troll. Just don't feed the trolls.

 

[Crick]

Since you're making the claim your links support you, you need to support it. Quote the parts supporting you. Raise your batting average from .000.

You don't have to, of course, but if you won't, everyone will draw the appropriate conclusion.

Actually the appropriate conclusion is you got caught in a lie and think if you just keep lying you will get past it.

Just ignore the troll. He knows he's a troll. We KNOW he's a troll. Just don't feed the trolls.

I believe you calling him a troll in an open post is a violation of the rules applicable to a moderator here.

I also find it interesting that you support Retired Gunny Seargant in this disagreement when you threatened to remove a thread of mine if I did not put up links to supporting data.

It astounds me that management here keeps you on as a moderator.

 

[jc456]

Since you're making the claim your links support you, you need to support it. Quote the parts supporting you. Raise your batting average from .000.

You don't have to, of course, but if you won't, everyone will draw the appropriate conclusion.

Actually the appropriate conclusion is you got caught in a lie and think if you just keep lying you will get past it.

Just ignore the troll. He knows he's a troll. We KNOW he's a troll. Just don't feed the trolls.

I believe you calling him a troll in an open post is a violation of the rules applicable to a moderator here.

I also find it interesting that you support Retired Gunny Seargant in this disagreement when you threatened to remove a thread of mine if I did not put up links to supporting data.

It astounds me that management here keeps you on as a moderator.

What's amazing to me is that you condone a lie.

 

[Crick]

What lie?

 

[jon_berzerk]

None of those links showed anyone predicted more tornadoes right now, and a couple even had someone saying there's no such effect.

You're just flailing. You're not even reading your own links.

So, you decided to outright lie about whats in the links.

Perfect

makes sense

--LOL

 

[jc456]

What lie?

The one you don't call out here by man tooth. That lie. Show some dignity.

 

[longknife]

The childish back and forth on threads like this is priceless.

 

[mamooth]

It astounds me that management here keeps you on as a moderator.

For another good example of what we're dealing with, check out post #36. It's literally nothing but jc hurling an insult. Like so many of jc's posts, it's an obvious violation of board rules, and it should have been deleted.

Westwall saw that post ... and ... hit the 'agree' button.

Westwall, are you saying that USMB rules have changed, and that posts which contain only insults now don't violate board rules, and are in fact so desirable that you stamp 'agree' on them? If that is the new board policy, everyone here would certainly like to know.

Anyways, we're still waiting for Westwall or any denier to offer any support for their claim that scientists were predicting more tornadoes now. Deniers are still batting a perfect .000 there. It appears they'd rather all fling sulky insults at me than back up their crazy claims.

Here, I'll help by showing them how it works. Here's one of Westwall's links, and some text from it.

Tornadoes and man-made climate change - a perfect storm Carbon Brief
---
For the moment, on tornadoes at least, the general view from the scientific field seems to be: 'we don't know'.
---

Thanks Westwall, for the link that directly contradicts your own claim.

It's the same old pattern. Deniers, due to their total ignorance of the science, make a stupid claim. That is, they start out with a mistake, and not a deliberate lie. When the mistake is pointed out, they pout, refuse to admit the mistake, and hurl abuse at the person who tried to educate them. That graduates it from "mistake" to "deliberate lie". We see it happen over and over here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It astounds me that management here keeps you on as a moderator.

For another good example of what we're dealing with, check out post #36. It's literally nothing but jc hurling an insult. Like so many of jc's posts, it's an obvious violation of board rules, and it should have been deleted.

Westwall saw that post ... and ... hit the 'agree' button.

Westwall, are you saying that USMB rules have changed, and that posts which contain only insults now don't violate board rules, and are in fact so desirable that you stamp 'agree' on them? If that is the new board policy, everyone here would certainly like to know.

Anyways, we're still waiting for Westwall or any denier to offer any support for their claim that scientists were predicting more tornadoes now. Deniers are still batting a perfect .000 there. It appears they'd rather all fling sulky insults at me than back up their crazy claims.

Here, I'll help by showing them how it works. Here's one of Westwall's links, and some text from it.

Tornadoes and man-made climate change - a perfect storm Carbon Brief
---
For the moment, on tornadoes at least, the general view from the scientific field seems to be: 'we don't know'.
---

Thanks Westwall, for the link that directly contradicts your own claim.

It's the same old pattern. Deniers, due to their total ignorance of the science, make a stupid claim. That is, they start out with a mistake, and not a deliberate lie. When the mistake is pointed out, they pout, refuse to admit the mistake, and hurl abuse at the person who tried to educate them. That graduates it from "mistake" to "deliberate lie". We see it happen over and over here.

waaa ******* waaaa....

You got caught lying. Admit it!

Then you go on trolling touting the lie as correct, calling others liars. You have no intention of debating anything. You are here to derail and deflect.. That is Trolling... Westwall did his job as a moderator by calling you on it.. Imagine that, you want him punished for doing his job....

 

[jc456]

It astounds me that management here keeps you on as a moderator.

For another good example of what we're dealing with, check out post #36. It's literally nothing but jc hurling an insult. Like so many of jc's posts, it's an obvious violation of board rules, and it should have been deleted.

Westwall saw that post ... and ... hit the 'agree' button.

Westwall, are you saying that USMB rules have changed, and that posts which contain only insults now don't violate board rules, and are in fact so desirable that you stamp 'agree' on them? If that is the new board policy, everyone here would certainly like to know.

Anyways, we're still waiting for Westwall or any denier to offer any support for their claim that scientists were predicting more tornadoes now. Deniers are still batting a perfect .000 there. It appears they'd rather all fling sulky insults at me than back up their crazy claims.

Here, I'll help by showing them how it works. Here's one of Westwall's links, and some text from it.

Tornadoes and man-made climate change - a perfect storm Carbon Brief
---
For the moment, on tornadoes at least, the general view from the scientific field seems to be: 'we don't know'.
---

Thanks Westwall, for the link that directly contradicts your own claim.

It's the same old pattern. Deniers, due to their total ignorance of the science, make a stupid claim. That is, they start out with a mistake, and not a deliberate lie. When the mistake is pointed out, they pout, refuse to admit the mistake, and hurl abuse at the person who tried to educate them. That graduates it from "mistake" to "deliberate lie". We see it happen over and over here.

Then you'd be banned! That's hilarious.

Edit: what's the difference between calling one a 'denier' and 'nut job'? Oh, one more thing, dispute you use the word denier

 

[jc456]

It astounds me that management here keeps you on as a moderator.

For another good example of what we're dealing with, check out post #36. It's literally nothing but jc hurling an insult. Like so many of jc's posts, it's an obvious violation of board rules, and it should have been deleted.

Westwall saw that post ... and ... hit the 'agree' button.

Westwall, are you saying that USMB rules have changed, and that posts which contain only insults now don't violate board rules, and are in fact so desirable that you stamp 'agree' on them? If that is the new board policy, everyone here would certainly like to know.

Anyways, we're still waiting for Westwall or any denier to offer any support for their claim that scientists were predicting more tornadoes now. Deniers are still batting a perfect .000 there. It appears they'd rather all fling sulky insults at me than back up their crazy claims.

Here, I'll help by showing them how it works. Here's one of Westwall's links, and some text from it.

Tornadoes and man-made climate change - a perfect storm Carbon Brief
---
For the moment, on tornadoes at least, the general view from the scientific field seems to be: 'we don't know'.
---

Thanks Westwall, for the link that directly contradicts your own claim.

It's the same old pattern. Deniers, due to their total ignorance of the science, make a stupid claim. That is, they start out with a mistake, and not a deliberate lie. When the mistake is pointed out, they pout, refuse to admit the mistake, and hurl abuse at the person who tried to educate them. That graduates it from "mistake" to "deliberate lie". We see it happen over and over here.

waaa ******* waaaa....

You got caught lying. Admit it!

Then you go on trolling touting the lie as correct, calling others liars. You have no intention of debating anything. You are here to derail and deflect.. That is Trolling... Westwall did his job as a moderator by calling you on it.. Imagine that, you want him punished for doing his job....

There are no rules for mantooth ask it!

 

[Billy_Bob]

It astounds me that management here keeps you on as a moderator.

For another good example of what we're dealing with, check out post #36. It's literally nothing but jc hurling an insult. Like so many of jc's posts, it's an obvious violation of board rules, and it should have been deleted.

Westwall saw that post ... and ... hit the 'agree' button.

Westwall, are you saying that USMB rules have changed, and that posts which contain only insults now don't violate board rules, and are in fact so desirable that you stamp 'agree' on them? If that is the new board policy, everyone here would certainly like to know.

Anyways, we're still waiting for Westwall or any denier to offer any support for their claim that scientists were predicting more tornadoes now. Deniers are still batting a perfect .000 there. It appears they'd rather all fling sulky insults at me than back up their crazy claims.

Here, I'll help by showing them how it works. Here's one of Westwall's links, and some text from it.

Tornadoes and man-made climate change - a perfect storm Carbon Brief
---
For the moment, on tornadoes at least, the general view from the scientific field seems to be: 'we don't know'.
---

Thanks Westwall, for the link that directly contradicts your own claim.

It's the same old pattern. Deniers, due to their total ignorance of the science, make a stupid claim. That is, they start out with a mistake, and not a deliberate lie. When the mistake is pointed out, they pout, refuse to admit the mistake, and hurl abuse at the person who tried to educate them. That graduates it from "mistake" to "deliberate lie". We see it happen over and over here.

Then you'd be banned! That's hilarious.

Edit: what's the difference between calling one a 'denier' and 'nut job'? Oh, one more thing, dispute you use the word denier

A nut job doesn't kill 6 million people for fun... The term denier is specific to those who deny that Hitler, a psychotic megalomaniac, did not kill 6 million people for his benefit. It's derogatory use is the mark of a fool who has no scientific empirical evidence to prove the need of its agenda and wants to stifle the truth being debated. It is a inflaming tool to keep the truth from the general populace.

Being a left wing nut job is something man tooth has mastered as evidenced by his use of a flaming word.

 

[westwall]

Since you're making the claim your links support you, you need to support it. Quote the parts supporting you. Raise your batting average from .000.

You don't have to, of course, but if you won't, everyone will draw the appropriate conclusion.

Actually the appropriate conclusion is you got caught in a lie and think if you just keep lying you will get past it.

Just ignore the troll. He knows he's a troll. We KNOW he's a troll. Just don't feed the trolls.

I believe you calling him a troll in an open post is a violation of the rules applicable to a moderator here.

I also find it interesting that you support Retired Gunny Seargant in this disagreement when you threatened to remove a thread of mine if I did not put up links to supporting data.

It astounds me that management here keeps you on as a moderator.

When I post as a MEMBER of the community I can say anything I wish within the rules. Ergo, when an individual has demonstrated that they are indeed a troll, it is fully appropriate to call them one. When I post as a Moderator, it will be in red like this (I AM NOW POSTING AS A MODERATOR) see the difference?

Furthermore, there is no rule against calling anybody anything. Period. So long as you are following the rules of posting (in other words you MUST have more in your post addressing the OP than you spend insulting the poster) you can call anyone anything so long as you are likewise not violating Zone rules. You know, like the CDZ, where everyone is supposed to be nice to each other.

Retired had already posted the link to the OP before I even joined into the discussion. The rules are applied equally, to everyone. Just ask any of the ultra right wingers who despise me as much as you do.

Now, it actually IS a violation to publicly question the actions of a moderator when they are acting as a moderator...so be very careful where you tread. I am far more lenient than some but don't push your luck.

That being said you can call me anything you like so long as you follow the aforementioned rules...I am an adult, unlike all of you seemingly, so I can take it.

In the future, if you have observations such as this to make. Make it in a PM to me or to any other moderator if you feel I am abusing you poor darlings. Truly, it won't bother me in the least if you do so.

Now, back to the OP. Are you going to address the facts and the links that I laid out, or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and go like your fellow poster?

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary:

No denier provided any evidence that more tornadoes were predicted.

They said they provided such evidence, but are all curiously unwilling to quote any such evidence, despite being asked.

Meanwhile, I showed how Westwall's links, in addition to not saying what he claimed they said, actually sometimes said the direct opposite of what he claimed it said. Such as here.

Tornadoes and man-made climate change - a perfect storm Carbon Brief
---
For the moment, on tornadoes at least, the general view from the scientific field seems to be: 'we don't know'.
---

Tornadoes Extreme Weather And Climate Change ThinkProgress
---
Many scientists would agree with the December assertion of Penn State meteorology professor Paul Markowski and National Severe Storms Laboratory senior research scientist Harold Brooks that, “Because of the inconsistency in [historical tornado] records, it is not known what effect global warming is having on tornado intensity.”
---

This certainly is an interesting psychological study of deniers. They actually all seem convinced that if they just scream insults loud enough, that makes up for their complete lack of evidence.