Researcher Says Global Warming Should Cause Fewer Tornadoes

University of Georgia researcher Thomas Mote, who co-authored the 2009 study that suggested fewer tornadoes in future, told the Star he has confidence in the hypothesis — but cautioned his projections of more stable tornado conditions don’t include Canada.

I know it is ironic saying this after last night when we had the most extensive outbreaks in 40 years, but there is some reason to believe we will see drier, more stable conditions in the southern U.S. as a consequence of climate change,” said Mote, director of the university’s Atmospheric Sciences program

Let’s think real hard about that.

Maybe ….. the ……. climate …… is ……. similar ……. to …….. 40 ………. years …… ago ?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Researcher Says Global Warming Should Cause Fewer Tornadoes

  1. Tony Duncan says:


    the evil cabal is falling apart. Two scientists in ONE day not toeing the party line?! Soros and Gore must be preparing the hit squads. HAVE to keep the troops in line. A few examples and all will be back to normal. It worked so well for Stalin after all.

    • You are so annoying.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      and you are endlessly entertaining.
      though you haven’t mentioned Manhattan underwater recently.

      • I quit hacking the Salon site and forcing Hansen to make idiotic predictions.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Good thing you stopped forcing him to make them because he is making so many of them already on his own. You were piling on man.


      • Tony Duncan says:


        thank you. And just for those unfamiliar with what Steve is referring to. For months he ridiculed Hansen for saying Manhattan would be underwater by 2008. This was a quote from left wing magazine online article that Steve seems to think is an unimpeachable source, incapable of telling anything but the absolute truth. The article highlights the book the quote is from. It mentions it in each of the first three paragraphs, it lists the website where you can by it. The problem was the book actually states this would happen in 2030, NOT 2oo8, and both Hansen and the writer confirm that as the right quote and it is completely consistent with all of Hansen’s other papers and public statements, whereas no where else does Hansen ever give the article version. the writer says he just said that number off the top of his head without checking. I have read the book and it does say not ONLY 2030, but also if there is a doubling of
        CO2 by then would this occur.
        Steve and others here contend that this was a nefarious planned alarmist scare tactic. And I have proposed the only possible scenario- that the writer and Hansen KNEW there would be anti global warming bloggers by the mid 2000’s and planned to plant a story 12 years after they spoke that would only be noticed 8 years after that by right wing bloggers too arrogant to bother checking the source, and then they would be able to discredit them.
        But they totally underestimate Steve, who is too intelligent not to have figured out this cunning plot, so he refuses to admit he made a mistake, because he knows he was set up.!!!

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        set up? you are funny Tony. You aren’t smart enough to set anyone up.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        One reads such comments and what can one say but, “Tony Duncan!”

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I am waiting for a less bizarre explanation that fits the facts of the case. I understand how upsetting it must be to lose ones favorite propaganda prop, but I think it is wildly funny that my scenario for the Hansen quote is actually more reasonable than the Obama born in Kenya conspiracy theories

      • Tony Duncan says:


        you are right you can’t change the past retroactively. EXACTLY why the book can be the only authoritative source.
        Glad you admit it. Now just say you were wrong and you are sorry and we can be done with it.
        I will even post on my Facebook page what a man you are!

        • Unfortunately the fly on the wall got squashed. before it died, it muttered something about a ridiculous prediction.

          I’ll mark you down for Times Square 2029 when they drop the beach ball into the water.

  2. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Maybe ….. the ……. climate …… is ……. similar ……. to …….. 40 ………. years …… ago ?

    No matter how you write there will still be minds that will not comprehend it—-including the asshole Tony.

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:


      I’m going to ask you a really hard question. So, think a lot before answering. How many scientists are saying the tornadoes are not worse than 40 years ago? Is he the only one saying 40 years ago?

      Do you understand why that is an important question?

  3. Tony Duncan says:


    I understand that you aren’t interested in reality, only in proving what you believe to be true. You have made it abundantly clear that climate scientists are the enemy trying to foist a totally bogus theory on an unsuspecting public for nefarious ends. I have no doubt that there are climate and other scientists saying things that are either wrong or not supported by the evidence. I believe in evolution and there are hundreds of scientists and whole fields that I think are bullshit, and are wrong about huge basic areas. But that does not mean evolution is wrong.
    I have not done an exhaustive analysis of climate scientists views on the effects of increased global temps on the genesis and intensity of tornados. I have read both Pilke’s views and a few others, but I don’t really care. What I base my views on are peer reviewed science, because I have not been convinced that Steve. Or Morano, or Anthony are able to really advance science just by blogging.

    • Paul H says:


      The bottom line is that for all the peer reviewed science that has been done, the AGW theory remains unproven while nature is proving to be most uncooperative.

      Scientists are welcome to continue their research and arguments, although hopefully in a much more honest and transparent way than has been the case so far. However in the meantime the whole issue has been thoroughly politicised and you cannot seriously expect sceptics to sit back and accept the often dishonest propaganda put out by the alarmist establishment.

    • Sean McHugh says:

      So how about the peer reviewed studies that support the Medieval Warming Period?

      • Tony Duncan says:


        contrary to what many posts and comments on this blog imply scientists do actually believe in natural variation and that other things besides CO2 lead to warming and cooling. As far as I can tell the science on the WMP has not been completely established regarding mean global temps as being higher than the most recent warming. The key thing is NOT whether there was a WMP but whether temps will continue to increase now and in the future. every single climate scientist I know of says that CO2 effects temperature, even Steve mumbles it occasionally.

        • If you don’t understand what I am writing about, don’t pretend that you do.

          Do you have any clue what the RRTM articles I have been writing are about? Your comments give the impression that everything I am saying is flying right over your head.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        it doesn’t matter what I think or understand of your RRTM articles. What do other scientists who are expert enough to have the ability to criticize them say?
        I know it is rather rude of me since this is your blog, but I am unwilling to accept your authority exclusively on the subject.

        • Don’t make lame comments about what I said about CO2 if you don’t understand it. I provided very precise information about the greenhouse effect of CO2.

      • Sean McHugh says:


        Please see below for my reply to your response to the MWP matter. It’s currently at the bottom of the comment field.

    • Sean McHugh says:

      When the data does not follow the hypothesis, do you still base your views on peer reviewed science?

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Yes I do. Do you?

      • Paul H says:

        Actually I find that rather worrying, Tony.

        ( I assume you mean that because a theory has been ” peer reviewed” it must be right, even though the evidence contradicts it).

        Please tell me I have misunderstood you!!

      • Sean McHugh says:

        When the data does not follow the hypothesis, do you still base your views on peer reviewed science? [Sean]

        Sean, Yes I do. Do you? [Tony]

        It’s how I got here. It’s why I am atheistic to Yahwism and Climate Change Orthodoxy.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I may have misunderstood the question. I DO not believe a theory is intrinsically true just because the peer reviewed science supports it.

      • Sean McHugh says:


        When the data does not follow the hypothesis, do you still base your views on peer reviewed science? [Sean]

        Sean, Yes I do. Do you? [Tony]

        I think I might have misread you the first time. It was because I wouldn’t imagine that you would say that you would continue to base your views on what the data denies. Perhaps the previous is not what you meant to say. In my previous response my careless inference had you saying that, for you (like me), the data trumps the theories.

  4. friday joe friday says:

    Tony, History shows again and again, how Nature points up the folly of men. I’m not even a scientist and I understand the remark of forty years ago and even though I’m to young to remember the outbreak of 1955, I understand the condition of a cold PDO. On a lighter note I remember the first I learned that the government lied to the people was when the Russians shot down the U-2. Eisenhower claimed it was a weather balloon, until four days later when parts of the plane and Gary Powers was telecast from Moscow. Since then I do not trust the government. Common sense will win out over propaganda every time.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      and if it was ONLY the government and environmental activists, I would thoroughly agree with you. Since I know some climate scientists and can compare my conversations with them to what I see on sites like this, I have a gauge on who is being honest and who is being deceptive. Not that I believe everything climate scientists tell me or that I discount everything I read on here, but I am not stupid enough to just accept what I am told here without some scientific confirmation.
      That is why I continue to point out Steve’s inability to accept that Hansen never said Mnahattan underwater in 2008. It shows he is not interested in the truth, only in being right. it is a totally non scientific issue that cannot be spun, yet he continues to try to rationalize it. The science will explain itself , and there no vast fraud in the scientific community. Socialists have not invented this issue in order to enslave mankind, and one should actually consider ALL the evidence and no just what fits your ideology.

      • Your obsession with which nonsensical forecast is the current officially sanctioned one is beyond my comprehension.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        That is hysterical, accusing ME of being obsessed with specific statements from scientists. You blindsided me with THAT one Steve. kudos!

        if socialism worked as well as your fantasy of this level of fraud, we would all be living in a utopia right now with our stars replaced by hammer and sickle. I always like how conspiracists (sic) imbue the evil manipulators with almost omnipotent powers. “officially sanctioned” very good

      • Nobama says:


        Conspiracies exist not solely in “Theory”. Any time two or more get together and plan anything – If that plan is viewed as having detrimental or immoral outcome by someone else, from their perspective, it is a conspiracy.

        There is no fantasy in recognizing the wealthy and powerful seek to pursue (impose) their will. Don’t we all do that? Nor are they hiding it. The Club of Rome isn’t a “Conspiracy Theory”. They are openly Malthusian. America has sought to encourage (some would say bludgeon) others to embrace our ideology of freedom for individuals.

        Much of the surface temperature record is controlled by a handful of individuals. Organizations such as the Bilderbergs share a collective perspective, and it isn’t unreasonable that an ideology can pervade a relatively small group such as this.

        I see the Malthusians as religious extremists. But you might just as well visualize the effect of a giant crowd that merely expresses an anxious move in one direction (To enter or depart some venue) The small actions of many become a deadly force for those trapped between that intent and some immovable object.

        For those of us without vast financial means, what is best for the uber-wealthy can be incredibly bad for us. It needn’t be Malevolent intent, tho its expression may be Malevolent indeed.

        So what you visualize as fantasy (Marxist Conspiracy of control via environmentalism) isn’t fantasy at all. The world around us offers countless examples. In China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ukraine, Russia, et al, this conspiracy you claim doesn’t exist murdered millions of people, commonly via starvation. Their economies fell into ruin.

        One need only look objectively at the “solutions” offered by the warmists to see that CAGW isn’t really about GW at all. It is fascist and controlling. It is Malthusian and Marxist.

        When the reverend Jim Jones was recruiting, did he explain to new converts that his plan was for mass suicide in the jungle? How many people would have signed up for that? Did HE even think this? Surely, no. He told a familiar story of a new experience of community and spirituality. A new world of Butterflies and Kittens.

        What you call “fantasy” is the mere observation that the collective forces of destructive ideologies are, as they have repeatedly been thruout history, alive and well, and seeking to impose their will.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I appreciate the tone of your comment, and the thought and clear explanation. Parts of what you say I agree with.
        that is why I base my views on peer reviewed science, so that the social powerbrokers that you are referring too cannot so easily project their interests on the facts that science uncovers. While it is not so hard to control the questions being asked in science through funding and cultural influence. However in climate science the main questions are well understood and being studied in a wide range of novel approaches. there is just no possibility of co-ordinating all these diver elements into a coherent framework that would be fraudulent. too many competent scientists would not be fooled. that doe not mean that all the science is right or even that there are unknowns that could have a profound influence on various conclusions. it does not mean that questionable avenues are purposefully not being fully explored. But it does mean that reality will eventually become quite clear regarding the consequences of GHE, probably within the next 15 years is my guess, much sooner if the most radical hypothesis have validity. Or if there is a significant cooling in the next 5 years that undoes much of the warming that has happened since the 80’s.

        But while I agree with some of your reasoning, the specifics are quite simplistic, at least the way you describe them, and from my understandings are an ideological filter that exclude much of what is actual going on in the world. While there are interests that are socialist in the world, they have almost so control of any aspect of economic functioning. There are bureaucratic and statist and other structures that are responsible for some of the limits you ascribe to Mathusians and marxists, there are many many other variables that have much more influence. And we are really considering a matrix of intermingling forces, again some of which have aspects that you re describing. The purpose of rigid ideologies is to convince people to only look at the trends and forces that are outlined in the ideology and force ALL factors into that mold by various techniques. It can be useful just to have a model to start basing assumptions on, but once the model is understood much more sophisticated one need to be developed that actually account for the real variables. Ideologies of left and right normally don’t allow that sort of revision, so people are trained not to question. It is fascinating to me that marxism, which was based on a system of questioning devolved into complete unquestioning. I have studied it a lot because of that. Less surprising that right wing ideologies do so, but they all pretend to. I recommend Bloom’s Closing of the Amertican Mind. A brilliant though seriously flawed work that at least has some elements of intellectual honesty and consistency.

  5. Sean McHugh says:

    Tony replied to me:

    As far as I can tell the science on the WMP has not been completely established regarding mean global temps as being higher than the most recent warming.

    Over about the last year and a half – my period of sufficient interest – I have become aware of numerous new studies, from all over the world, that have supported a global Medieval Warming Period. For AGW orthodoxy, it only took Mann’s dodgy Hockey Stick to disappear the MWP. Where were the warmists saying, “Hang on, where’s the MWP and RWP?” Note that I am prepared to support the ‘dodgy’ label.

    The key thing is NOT whether there was a WMP but whether temps will continue to increase now and in the future.

    But if nature has made it at least this warm before, more than once, why assume that that this time it is different? As for asking will it continue to rise, well it has already discontinued – for around 15 years. So the question should really be, will it resume rising and how long should we wait before being tentative with the assumption that it will?

    every single climate scientist I know of says that CO2 effects temperature

    But by how much, is the question. I think most here would agree that if you are in a large hall and you turn on your cell phone, all else being equal, it will warm the hall. AGW orthodoxy is reliant on amplification through positive feedback. As far as I know, all the orthodox models employ this as do their predictions. The orthodoxy also warns of a ‘tipping point’, a point a which the temperature will go into runaway. This is a direct consequence of the supposed positive feedback. Positive feedback systems are inherently unstable while natural systems rely on negative feedback and the resultant stability. If the natural system is so unstable, with regard the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, why hasn’t it already gone into runaway?

    The climate is not following the predictions. One often hears the cries of, “It’s happening faster than we predicted” or similar, but the opposite appears to be true. Perhaps you might like to defend the claim that global warming is happening faster than the IPCC predicted.

  6. Kevin says:

    Hey, which climate scientist do I have to have sex with to make it rain in southern Louisiana? And don’t say Michael Mann, because that’s a dealbreaker.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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