We are absolutely seeing the results of climate change

[joshcryer]

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

Joe. Here's the difference between you and I. When I am wrong I admit it. When I post something misleading (not intentionally), I admit it (say my recollection of something is wrong but has the spirit of the original information).

When you are provided information that should, reasonably, change your opinion or at least say, "Hey, you have a point" you don't admit it. You just repeat the same canned response. It is unfortunate. I learn things when you claim there's no evidence, every time. I Google it, I search it, I did. If I can't find anything I sort of have to agree with you. But that's rarely happened (I can't think of an instance where it has happened but I suspect it did at some point, if not with you, with another minimizer).

In the end, I swear, when you claim to know something or to have some information I don't know about, honest to fuck don't think you fact-check your own words. It kills me. I do it every time. I may not be a genius but internet searches can quickly falsify my own beliefs. I think, though I have no proof, you read sites that confirm the bias that you obviously have. In that event you wind up saying stuff that you believe rather than what is true.

Citations, they're important. Provide them. You could even make inroads into this debate simply by searching for whether or not tornadoes have been increasing. I already admitted they weren't, though, because I fucking did that. With the caveat that the data is shit. That's how science works, dude. You go out and you look for the data and you see what it says. In this case neither you or I have any real world data to back up our positions. Except, I have models, and in that case you have to show how those models are wrong. You don't, ergo you are fucking wrong.