General Discussion

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)

81. I'm not going to dig up old threads.

Tue May 21, 2013, 02:58 AM

May 2013

I have little patience to have a discussion with you because every damn time I provide citations for what I say you don't even address them and you repeat the canned creationist-style denier-style arguments like "we don't know for sure" or "the evidence is still out."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We are absolutely seeing the results of climate change [View all] Hugabear May 2013 OP

Climate change is a problem....but this particular event does NOT represent any pattern whatsoever. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author XemaSab May 2013 #3

The OP didn't say one event was a pattern --but since you're constructing a straw man of her post CreekDog May 2013 #4

This had nothing to do with XemaSab. What in the FUCK are you blathering on about, CD? AverageJoe90 May 2013 #10

You making a straw man of her post and misrepresenting what it said (sometimes called "lying") CreekDog May 2013 #11

Where do you think that I was attacking her here?(i.e. where's the proof?) AverageJoe90 May 2013 #17

You were misrepresenting the OP to make it easier to argue against CreekDog May 2013 #27

That wasn't true and you damn well know it. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #35

i didn't accuse you of stalking, i accused you of serial obfuscation on climate CreekDog May 2013 #38

"Concern troll".....Look who's talking, ya hypocrite. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #42

oh? which topic am I concern trolling DU on? CreekDog May 2013 #43

Just about every other post that criticizes "doomster" B.S., that's all. n/t AverageJoe90 May 2013 #46

i didn't imply you were concern trolling on climate change CreekDog May 2013 #45

No, that isn't what I was referring to, and you know it. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #48

yes you did it to the OP not Xema, I wrote the wrong name CreekDog May 2013 #50

Sure as hell took you forever to correct that mistake, though..... AverageJoe90 May 2013 #51

it took me 16 minutes after you pointed out my error CreekDog May 2013 #54

It MAY or MAY NOT represent a pattern. joshcryer May 2013 #29

well yeah, either he doesn't know he's making contradictory arguments CreekDog May 2013 #31

Neither of these is true, and you know it. n/t AverageJoe90 May 2013 #32

Josh, I've been watching the weather ALL year. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #36

Hang in there Joe... defacto7 May 2013 #57

He's a minimizer. joshcryer May 2013 #63

Which is simply not true.....Never was to begin with, either. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #71

I'm not going to dig up old threads. joshcryer May 2013 #81

Yeah. Thanks, man. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #70

There is plenty of evidence. joshcryer May 2013 #65

I blame the repukes regardless flamingdem May 2013 #2

especially after the 1999 tornado there Skittles May 2013 #8

exactly! flamingdem May 2013 #12

Pertinent Tweets.. on what you're saying, Hugabear Cha May 2013 #5

re: the second tweet laundry_queen May 2013 #28

Very much more intense, laundry queen.. "How to Understand the Scale of Today's OK Tornado" Cha May 2013 #33

Interesting read. laundry_queen May 2013 #52

thank you for that additional valuable info, lq Cha May 2013 #55

If someone told me we'd be seeing 2 MILE wide tornadoes this soon... joshcryer May 2013 #30

2-mile wide tornadoes were possible LONG before this century, Josh, that's the problem. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #37

The earliest recorded incidence of a tornado this large was 1968. joshcryer May 2013 #62

That may be true, but we've only had good tornado science since the late '50s, though. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #66

I esablised the data isn't that good, actually. joshcryer May 2013 #83

Which models are you referring to, btw? n/t AverageJoe90 May 2013 #87

Those in post #29 which you obviously didn't read. joshcryer May 2013 #92

Josh, the problem is, while these are solid models, they did NOT disprove my original point. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #93

Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma would disagree with you young_at_heart May 2013 #6

not if it interferes with busine$$ as usual Skittles May 2013 #15

Amen to that! n/t AverageJoe90 May 2013 #19

yes, more extreme weather is common to the trends they are predicting CreekDog May 2013 #7

Well, not so much more extreme weather, really, but rather, more extreme variation in occurrences. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #13

Wait until the "new" jet stream snaps off a little loop right over your house. DCKit May 2013 #25

That Derecho was something rightsideout May 2013 #84

Ouch. Sorry, man. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #86

We know no such thing Yo_Mama May 2013 #9

Very true indeed. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #14

Yes, we know that 1) climate change is occuring and 2) this event cannot be separated from climate CreekDog May 2013 #24

Yes, it can be separated, actually. Nobody can argue otherwise, for now. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #39

Truly... 2naSalit May 2013 #16

Some of those clumps are migrating birds XemaSab May 2013 #95

It's going to be an interesting summer... and not in a good way. nt DCKit May 2013 #18

We are dreading it nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #21

Maybe so. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #22

It fits all predictions of more extreme weather nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #20

Well, not so much more extremes, as in VARIATIONS of said extremes, in this case, TBH. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #23

I am talking of the predictions. nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #26

Go vegan! (if it's not too inconvenient for you, love, considering) flvegan May 2013 #34

Any good vegan recipes out there, by the way? n/t AverageJoe90 May 2013 #40

This is why people don't take us seriously. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #41

Yeah. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #44

Are not tornados caused when cold applegrove May 2013 #47

Something does seem to be a little off this year. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #49

Last two years have shown extremes RobertEarl May 2013 #53

Very strange indeed, TBH. But..... AverageJoe90 May 2013 #56

Extremes are what was predicted RobertEarl May 2013 #60

When I was a kid (60's-70's) our climate was predictable. DCKit May 2013 #88

The atmosphere has been altered RobertEarl May 2013 #89

Which side are you on? Climate change or deniers? DCKit May 2013 #90

Really? RobertEarl May 2013 #91

climate is the average of weather you know... CreekDog May 2013 #61

This is nothing compared to whats coming. So lets just think about it some more. ErikJ May 2013 #58

I'm not quite so sure of that. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #64

HA! You must be a Koch brother undercover agent. ErikJ May 2013 #69

Haha, LOL. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #74

I know the Koch bros. tactics. I dont trust ANY apologists. ErikJ May 2013 #75

Oh, so you were serious.....that's a shame. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #76

Yeah, SUUUURE! ErikJ May 2013 #78

I read this article on NPR today, thought it was too early to post as an OP: Rhiannon12866 May 2013 #59

But the science is unclear and not settled. There is still room for debate. You must accept my side Nanjing to Seoul May 2013 #67

Well..... AverageJoe90 May 2013 #72

No, I was satirizing the people who will say it's not climate change. The deniers. I completely Nanjing to Seoul May 2013 #77

Who's Gawwwd? 1ProudAtheist May 2013 #80

My Gawwd. . .he has a bigger shwantz than all those other Gawwds!!!! Nanjing to Seoul May 2013 #82

lets face it MFM008 May 2013 #68

Certainly seems like it. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #73

Storms Like This Drop Out Of A Hook Echo Formation DallasNE May 2013 #79

We won't be seeing 25-mile wide tornados, though(5 miles might be a different story, though) AverageJoe90 May 2013 #85

We sure are and the climate deniers are either gopiscrap May 2013 #94