When tornadoes don't strike, like they're supposed to

You've heard it before: our temperature increases, and it results in more extreme weather.  The IPCC has been talking about this for... forever. In 2007, NASA told us that Global Warming would bring about more tornadoes.
ThinkProgress dumbly echoed this last year.
(Sidenote; I'm being redundant when I say that ThinkProgress dumbly did anything.)

Of course, the AGW crowd has also been talking about 50 million people being displaced by 2011 as a result of global warming, and that never happened either.

With all of that in mind, USAToday just told us that the last 3 years have had the lowest amount of tornadoes on record.

The U.S. experienced fewer tornadoes in the past three years than any similar span since accurate records began in the 1950s. Yet meteorologists aren't sure exactly why.

Neat.
Once again, the AGW scientists confidently predict doom and gloom... but when it doesn't happen.  Well. Its most likely because of....

Nobel winner quits Physics group over Global Warming

The headline kinda says it all.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

What I like about Ivar Giaever's letter is that he addresses the real problem of how this issue is debated. Global Warming data is taken as incontrovertible evidence, when it is anything but.

From his letter:

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

Phil Jones, the Scientist caught in e-mail scandal

I want to feel sorry for the guy.
Its true what he says. He wasn't ready for the criticism that he recieved when it was revealed that he was one of the scientists at the center of a global warming scandal. It must have been hard to have all of those people criticize him just because they felt that he...
... wait a minute.

What exactly was Jones accused of doing again?

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

So Jones tries to discredit other scientists, and he thinks its part of his job.

When someone tries to discredit Jones, they are... they are what?

In my opinion, they are trying to reveal the truth?