Dancing on the graves in Kentucky

The actual meteorology of the Kentucky outbreak

Well, actually, they didn’t even wait for the funerals before Biden and the AP were using the tornado outbreak to push their climate virtue signaling agenda.

Never mind that violent tornados have been declining in the last 40 years.

But no weather event that results in tragedy can go unexploited. Bunch of damned ghouls.

30 thoughts on “Dancing on the graves in Kentucky

  1. Never a good time to talk about climate.
    Never a good time to talk about school shootings and gun control.

    Always a good time to bash those who might bring it up after tragedies.

    So we do nothing.

    Just like Kerry’s column, you parrot the whine line….again.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Did you miss the parts about severe tornados being on the decline? or the part about cold, not warm air being the cause?

      So, no, it is never the right time to push propaganda that has no link whatsoever to reality

      Like

  2. What did Biden say? I heard he just answered a question about climate impact with a simple I am not sure but that climate change is an issue being looked at.

    What should he have said?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “Q Mr. President, does this say anything to you about climate change? Is this — or do you conclude that these storms and the intensity has to do with climate change?

      THE PRESIDENT: Well, all that I know is that the intensity of the weather across the board has some impact as a consequence of the warming of the planet and the climate change.

      The specific impact on these specific storms, I can’t say at this point. I’m going to be asking the EPA and others to take a look at that. But the fact is that we all know everything is more intense when the climate is warming — everything. And, obviously, it has some impact here, but I can’t give you a — a quantitative read on that.”

      That is simply untrue. Storms have become LESS intense as the climate warmed.

      What should he have said?

      ‘We’re here to help”

      And absolutely no speculation on climate.

      Like

      1. “We’re here to help”

        Laughable.

        You can’t stand and honest man giving an honest answer.

        And you accuse others of being ghouls? How quickly you tried to turn this straight-forward comment into something corrupt. The ghoul here is you.

        And, by the way, you are cherry-picking the data to suit your agenda. Never mind that the number of tornadoes have increased sharply in recent decades but, gee, F3 tornadoes are down.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/13/heres-how-rare-that-massive-tornado-kentucky-actually-was/

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/societal-impacts/tornadoes/

        There has only been ONE December tornado of this ferocity in the last seventy years. Climate science predicts extreme events. This was an extreme event. The President’s answer was not “ghoulish.” It was fair, restrained and accurate. Those are qualities you would do well to emulate.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Getting statistics for less than F3 tornados in the past is difficult. Most minor tornados in rural areas never got reported. Prior to doppler radar they came and went unrecorded. Prior to the 1990s there are no accurate counts of F1 rural tornados.

          We suffer from what Lomberg calls the expanding bullseye. More people are living in rural areas and commuting than in the past, so more houses will be hit.

          Like

          1. Yadda,yadda,yadda.

            Whatever the issues, the best data that we have says that tornadoes are more frequent now than they were just decades ago. And, of course, you ignore those SAME measurement problems and categorically assert that the stronger tornadoes have been declining.

            The real point is that Biden’s response to a question he was asked was fair, restrained and accurate. Your “criticism” and name-calling in response was none of those.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Do you understand the difference between F1 and F3 tornados? It’s not just wind speed. It’s the damage and potential for damage.

            Before every TV station had doppler radar, a dozen F1 tornados could have slipped through south Chesapeake and no one would have known unless a barn got damaged. But an F3 would have gotten our attention even before doppler. Regular radar could pick them up because of the debris carried aloft and they left marks.

            SO there is no such thing as a linear comparison of low energy tornados pre and with doppler.

            How many were there in 1955? 1960? No one knows.

            Like

          3. You make valid points about the difficulty of measuring the relative changes in the frequency and intensity of various classes of tornadoes. None of which address the point – your over-the-top and ugly attack on President Biden for his fair, accurate and restrained answer to a question that he was asked. Your calling him a “ghoul” was NOT fair, was NOT accurate and most certainly was NOT restrained.

            What you think you accomplish with this sort of ugliness is a mystery. It is certainly not an attempt to persuade. I suppose it may be just a venting of anger and frustration because so few are buying your opinions on climate science. Doubly frustrating for you since you are so smart and everybody else is so dumb.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “What should he have said?”

        Unlike his predecessor, and contrary to what many have said about the current POTUS, he answered the question asked.

        And asking the professionals to take a look at causes is not a bad thing. Invoking science is not a bad thing. Just because you disagree with the science is no reason to denigrate it.

        And at least Mr. Biden isn’t throwing rolls of paper towels at folks to assist with the cleanup.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. RE: “But no weather event that results in tragedy can go unexploited. Bunch of damned ghouls.”

    That’s fair. Propaganda is the wallpaper of politics today. It is good to be reminded that a real world exists outside the confines.

    Like

    1. “That’s fair.”

      Did you read the question asked and the President’s answer? Dr. Tabor provided them above.

      There is NOTHING “fair” about taking that restrained answer as a reason to call the President a “ghoul.” IMHO.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Did you read the quotation I pulled from Dr. Tabor’s post? It doesn’t specify who the ghoul is.

        As usual, your commentary reacts to a figment of your own imagination. Old Stumble Joe made a mistake that no thinking or informed person would make. In the process, he exploited the deaths and losses of the tornado victims. He is either malicious or incompetent, or maliciously incompetent.

        Like

        1. As usual, your lack of reading comprehension leads to accusations of my imagining things. In fact – if you can read and understand plain English – Tabor explicitly referred to Biden and the AP as a “bunch of damned ghouls.” This is NOT debatable.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Tabor explicitly referred to Biden and the AP as a ‘bunch of damned ghouls.'”

          Yes he did. Biden and the AP constitute a group of people. Why did you express no anger over the AP being called ghouls?

          Because in your irrelevant imagination, only the insult to Stumble Joe matters.

          Like

          1. “Because in your irrelevant imagination, only the insult to Stumble Joe matters.”

            Uh, once again you show how inadequate your reading comprehension is.

            I did not directly respond to Tabor’s silly and insulting post. I joined in the thread when he elaborated on what PRESIDENT BIDEN had said and what PRESIDENT BIDEN should have said to avoid his characterization of being a “ghoul.” The discussion I joined was about PRESIDENT BIDEN.

            But, at least we agree that Tabor was insulting. Small steps.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. You joined my part of the thread by misreading my comment, which asserted and substantiated that Dr. Tabor’s statement was fair.

            Like

          3. Now you are getting even more ridiculous.

            There was (1) nothing in your statement that was possible to misread and (2) there was nothing in it to “substantiate” Tabor’s claim other than your agreement.

            President Biden DID NOT try to “exploit” the weather tragedy – he answered a question. That is why I suggested that you read and try to understand what was actually said.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Here is the answer of a tornado studying climatologist to the same question that the President was asked . . .

    “By James B. Elsner

    Dr. Elsner is a professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee, where his research focuses on tornadoes, hurricanes and climate change.

    I’m a tornado climatologist, and it is not unusual for people to ask me after a spate of storms like the ones that ripped through the center of the country on Friday whether climate change has anything to do with it. The answer is: It’s complicated.”

    The same answer that the President gave. Is this fellow a “damned ghoul” as well?

    https://tinyurl.com/2p9839aa

    Liked by 1 person

        1. Not in substance, either. Unlike Stumble Joe, Dr. Eisner doesn’t posit causation between climate change and the Kentucky tornadoes.

          Like

          1. Yes, in substance.

            That there is a causal link is a HYPOTHESIS that is shared by both. And both make clear that it is not proven but only a possibility.

            Read the whole opinion piece in the NYT. Oh wait, that is fake news. And your comment shows that you have not read it.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. “There is no such thing as a ‘tornado climatologist’ . . .”

        Cute, I suppose, but actually kind of dumb. The effect of climate on tornadoes IS a field of study. And that is what this guy says he does. Any reason to doubt him or do you just know from first principles that he is corrupt and/or a ghoul?

        Liked by 1 person

          1. …” cosmetic dentists(all of us)”…

            You just proved my jokey post to be true. Thank you.

            …”there are no cosmetic proctologists”

            They are referred to in the professional vernacular as “Plastic Surgeons”.

            And on a personal note, I can attest to surgical procedures on that body part. Mine has been closed for business since March 2013.

            Like

          2. Specialization in science is not just the norm, it is necessary as information becomes so massive.

            I go to an ophthalmologist, his surgical specialty is cataracts and macular degeneration. He does not do ocular fluid replacement for floaters that impair clear vision. Another local Doctor does that in addition to being an ophthalmologist.

            Perhaps he is not called a “floater specialist” but his expertise in that is well known.

            There are meteorologists who study specialty fields also.

            The little bit I saw and understand for my little mind to deal with is the concern that there are a greater number of “multiple tornado” outbreaks. That is, single supercell storm fronts that spawn large number of tornadoes at one time. Research continues.

            Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s