Skip to content

Don’t Mention Low Tornado Numbers–It’s Not Fair!!!

May 7, 2013
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

Dr Marshall Shepherd is President of The American Meteorological Society. Yesterday he complained on Twitter

 

science lit very clear that tornado activity-climate change links weak, why r certain groups making record low tornado news

 

Other contributors, notably NOAA’s tornado expert, Harold Brooks, pointed out that it might have something to do with the fact that alarmists had made a big deal about high tornado numbers a couple of years ago! To which Shepherd replies

 

“Exactly Harold, and I made the same point then as well, I think the tornado issue has been abused on both sides of climate disc

 

So, just to put the record straight, sceptics are not claiming:-

 

1) Global warming will necessarily result in less tornadoes.

2) Lower tornado numbers are evidence of global cooling.

 

What we are pointing out is that there is absolutely no evidence at all to support alarmist claims that tornadoes are getting or will get worse. NOAA themselves say that there has been little trend in the last 55 years and the figures suggest a decline since the 1970’s in tornado numbers.

So, how on earth can this be interpreted as “abuse of the tornado issue”? Since when is putting the record straight, and correcting false statements, abuse?

 

But perhaps the most remarkable tweet from the good doctor was this:-

 

Just follow the science literature. This graphic highlights what we know about links http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/Extreme-Weather-and-Climate-Change-Infographic.jpg …

 

And his link is this one from the Union of Concerned Socialists Scientists.

 

Print

 

“Limited Evidence” of AGW increasing tornadoes? Limited? There is NO EVIDENCE!! None, Zilch, Nada, Bugger All.

 

It is sad when the President of the AMS cannot see the difference between one side making wild statements with no basis in fact, and the other side, which uses facts to put the record straight.

It is even sadder when he himself then goes on to quote one such claim.

About these ads
11 Comments leave one →
  1. May 7, 2013 1:02 pm

    has he really made a point at the time against alarmists? where when and how?

  2. May 7, 2013 2:03 pm

    Your title is dead on. I have used Alarmist literature against them, because their claims of doom and gloom are not coming to pass. I use it to show their alarmism. Yet they are so dense, they immediately project their own actions as those of others.

    The tornado drought means nothing EXCEPT it is a refutation of their Armageddon claims. Yet they do not have the intelligence to realize that.

  3. R2Dtoo permalink
    May 7, 2013 2:43 pm

    Did I read somewhere that a large majority of meteorologists don’t buy into the CAGW scam? If so, the only way to stop the misinformation is for them to oust the leadership that keeps spinning the CA part. NASA scientists are stepping forward- now for some other groups to clean up the own houses.

    • May 7, 2013 4:33 pm

      Certainly many don’t agree.

      I think we see the same top down control of the debate that we do with other science bodies such as the Royal Society and American Physicists.

      The people who run these bodies are the “committee types” who aren’t interested in what the members say.

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    May 7, 2013 11:32 pm

    The funny reddish-orange Infographic is attributed to the IPCC SREX Report (2012)

    That’s this: http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

    There is a summary (11.8 MB) and a Full SREX (31MB) and just to keep the numbers rolling they claim 220 authors, 62 countries, and 18611 review comments.

    I did not open either of these and learn exactly where their graphic is found – I’m not that interested. What caught my attention is the shape of the graphic because it looks like one of the charts showing risk of various investments from “cash” on the left to S&P500 in the center, and emerging markets on the right – followed by tulip bulbs on the far right.

    One only needs to add “sales of ice cream” way out to the left and there would be a “Jump the shark” moment.

    Why are highly paid folks such as Marshall Shepherd and Harold Brooks engaging in boomerang twits?

    • Greg Goodman permalink
      May 9, 2013 7:36 am

      Only twits tweet.

      They probably think this is part of their “outreach” project. They probably think there’s more chance of influencing twits on a format that is too short to present evidence and too short for anyone to prove you are wrong.

      Ideal for AGW ‘outreach’.

  5. Greg Goodman permalink
    May 9, 2013 7:10 am

    So, just to put the record straight, sceptics are not claiming:-

    1) Global warming will necessarily result in less tornadoes.

    2) Lower tornado numbers are evidence of global cooling.

    So why do you consider yourself the sceptics’ spokesman on this. Please speak for yourself not others.

    In any case the two statements here are contradictory. I don’t know whether that was what you intended but another reason to speak for yourself. Any confusion will be your own and not the fault of “sceptics” whoever you may intend that to mean.

    I am sceptical, in the scientific sense, and I would say the evidence suggests 1) is true.
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=218

    The warming period was characterised by less tornadoes.

    Anyone make comments based on how one year, 2012, relates to global warming trends is being foolish and probably not being objective.

    Equally warmists getting enthusiastic about the previous couple of years showing higher tornado count will be sad to know this is probably an indicator that we are entering a new cooling period.

  6. May 11, 2013 5:58 pm

    It is sad when the President of the AMS cannot see the difference between one side making wild statements with no basis in fact, and the other side, which uses facts to put the record straight.

    It’s not just tornadoes. The ENTIRE skeptical effort is to “set the record straight” that has been skewed out of all proportions by the claims of CAGW activists (which includes the IPCC). Had the alarmists not made such bogus claims – including tornadoes – and created the entire global warming scare, the skeptics would have no reason to even exist.

    Skepticism, pretty much by definition, is a reaction to weak or unfounded claims. Duh.

    Steve Garcia

Trackbacks

  1. These items caught my eye – 7 May 2013 | grumpydenier
  2. Long Term Tornado Trends | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: