Is God punishing red states with severe weather and destructive tornadoes...

Gondwanaland said:
Oh you need evidence that more people in more places make it more likely that tornadoes will hit something constructed by humans? You really are a fucktard, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming that you have no integrity and no credibility. Just another thoughtless troll.
 
AProudLefty said:
I am an expert in Gibberese. I'll translate it for you.

No, sport, Mother Nature is the ultimate conservative there is.
Click to expand...

Um ok. That still doesn't make any sense. Nature is a conservative? At least half of the posters here are so fucking stupid.
 
AProudLefty said:
Re-read it. I did not say the graph was adjusted.
Click to expand...
If it's not adjusted your claim is baseless.

Yes you did: "Not to mention tornado damages have DECREASED". But yes you did provide evidence for that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did provide evidence, therefore I did not 'merely state' something. I stated something followed by immediate backup.

Again, how is that relevant? It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Click to expand...
You literally fucking claimed that the damage was evidence of global warming you daft cunt. But now that the evidence shows that damage has declined you want to pretend it has nothing to do with anything. You couldn't be honest for one in your fucking cumsleeve life could you?
Now you say it's irrelevant, just as I have stated.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything was irrelevant. Now you're lying again like the used condom that you are. You claimed the damages were proof. Yet the damages show the opposite of your claim and thus are evidence that your claim is wrong.

You realize that the graph includes months, right?
Click to expand...

What about them?
 
Gondwanaland said:
If it's not adjusted your claim is baseless.
Click to expand...

Again, I did not claim that it was adjusted. Quote the part where I did.

Yes, I did provide evidence, therefore I did not 'merely state' something. I stated something followed by immediate backup.
Click to expand...

This nitpicking is pointless. Let's just say that you did provide evidence and that it's irrelevant to anything we were talking about.

You literally fucking claimed that the damage was evidence of global warming you daft cunt.
Click to expand...

What the fuck? I did no such thing. We were talking about recording the number of tornadoes over the years, dumbass.

What about them?
Click to expand...

The average includes the months. Gosh I can't believe you cannot comprehend that.
 
AProudLefty said:
Again, I did not claim that it was adjusted. Quote the part where I did.



This nitpicking is pointless. Let's just say that you did provide evidence and that it's irrelevant to anything we were talking about.



What the fuck? I did no such thing. We were talking about recording the number of tornadoes over the years, dumbass.



The average includes the months. Gosh I can't believe you cannot comprehend that.
Click to expand...

There's no sense into taking to a climate change denier. They refuse to read any of the 1000s of peer reviewed studies. Sometimes they find some crackpot unreliable article. Ultimately, they put politics above science and in many cases, aren't smart enough to understand it. It's the same thing as COVID.
 
AProudLefty said:
Again, I did not claim that it was adjusted. Quote the part where I did.
Click to expand...
Again, if it is not adjusted then your claims about what it shows are baseless.

This nitpicking is pointless. Let's just say that you did provide evidence and that it's irrelevant to anything we were talking about.
Click to expand...
It's entirely relevant as you claimed the damage proved global warming when the damage has instead decreased, disproving global warming by your very own logic.

What the fuck? I did no such thing. We were talking about recording the number of tornadoes over the years, dumbass.
Click to expand...
Yes you fucking did you lying cunt

The average includes the months. Gosh I can't believe you cannot comprehend that.
Click to expand...

Of course it includes the months. You can't get an average out of a single number you braindead fuck.
 
Gondwanaland said:
You made a claim that I should reread the chart after I noted that it did not contain any adjustments or hints of adjustments, you braindead cunt
Click to expand...

Hmm it seems that you have a hard time with reading comprehension.

I asked you if NOAA forgot to mention the little detail about the technology developing over the years that accounts for the increase in the graph.
 
AProudLefty said:
Hmm it seems that you have a hard time with reading comprehension.

I asked you if NOAA forgot to mention the little detail about the technology developing over the years that accounts for the increase in the graph.
Click to expand...

He won't prove that because he pulled it out of his ass. That's why he can't provide any sources.
 
AProudLefty said:
Hmm it seems that you have a hard time with reading comprehension.

I asked you if NOAA forgot to mention the little detail about the technology developing over the years that accounts for the increase in the graph.
Click to expand...

I guess we will never know because you failed to actually provide the source you got your graph from, likely because you just did a google image search and grabbed the first picture you could find that you ignorantly thought supported your bullshit.

As far as I can see, yes, tehy failed to mention that quite large detail, and made no effort to account for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top