It’s getting too easy to debunk the Guardian and their alarmist claims. The latest one is that recent tornadoes in Michigan are “undeniably” linked to climate change:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/25/michigan-climate-crisis
No historical tornado data was presented and no climate scientists were interviewed. There are only the usual anecdotal claims and appeals to emotion. The only connection to climate change was through a reference toward the end of the article citing the increased frequency of billion dollar disasters (BDD) in the US. Of course the BDD data is severely flawed as it doesn’t take into account the fact that property values have risen 50% greater than the CPI index they use and that there’s way more property & people in harms way today vs. 1980 (among other flaws like increases in insurance participation rates over time).
So are tornadoes becoming more frequent or intense in Michigan? The data says no, and it’s not even close!
The Guardian should look after itself. Shoddy and biased quasi-journalism will be its demise.
They get the message across for those who choose not to look further. That’s called Propaganda.
These people are way beyond hope.
But the charts suggest it is linked to “climate change.” Inversely.
That’s a fact that supports what is logical. Warmer climate, due to *how* the climate warms, REDUCES temperature differentials (tropics vs. high latitudes AND day vs. night). And that leads to LESS violent weather, not more.
Once again so-called “climate science” gets things backwards.
Yes, more tornadoes when the weather is cooler.
One more thing (Columbo mode):
Because our ability to observe and record tornadoes has been significantly enhanced in more recent years, the downward trend is likely understated.
Facts?
You want facts?
Why?
It must be true, Dr. Vislocky said so and that is good enough for the Guardian.
This post was kind of confusing to me at first, too, but I think Dr. Vislocky was debunking the Grauniad article?
Here’s a WUWT article by him from 2021.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/29/increasingly-powerful-tornadoes/
You are right, Phil. That doesn’t bear any weight with the Guardian, though, I guess they probably don’t understand the paper even if they have read it.
Yes I was doing the debunking, lol. Climate disruption is probably to blame for the article formatting 😁
I can use such an excuse for cumbersome wordsmithing. 🙂
Don’t you mean “wordsalading?”
Yes. Climate disruption affects one’s ability to write coherently, tie one’s shoes, find a toilet in time, lots o’stuff.
You might even find yourself growing a second head if you’re not careful.
I grew a beard. Does that count?
Climate disruption operates in strange and mysterious ways. Anyway, thanks for the response.
I am waiting for the Unified Field Theory of Everything where Climate Changed is entangled in quantum strings.
No offense, but your name in the title seems like the claim is made from you. Your name should be in the body as the author of the rebuttal.
Agreed, something strange happened in the formatting between article submission and the eventual post on the web site which is out of my control.
Thanks Phil. I had missed that contribution by Prof. Bob.
It must be true.
It is posted on the Internet.
Everything on the Internet is true.
It says so on the Internet.
Increasingly Powerful Tornadoes???
By Robert Vislocky, Ph.D
https://iowaclimate.org/2021/12/29/increasingly-powerful-tornadoes/
29 Dec 2021
Found this. Note the date. Maybe the Graunidad is running out of current material.
The author seems to be blissfully unaware of the “1974 Super Outbreak” of tornadoes that hit Michigan and nearby states. It was one of the worst tornado outbreaks ever recorded. That happened a half century ago. Here’s an overview: 1974 Super Outbreak – Wikipedia
I survived.
Right near the end of three decades of COOLING climate!
Xenia is near where I lived back then, but I was in Michigan at the time and missed all the “fun.”
It’s shown on the first figure
The last time I checked, tornados = weather, not climate.
Right. There is no connection between tornadoes and CO2.
It’s all about the jet stream configuration. CO2 has nothing to do with that, either.
Your all wrong . . .
they are absolutely linked to climate change . . as the worlds warms by 0.5C over many decades the tornado frequency goes down, its obvious. Just shows that an inverse relationship is still a
relationshipIn this case, climate change does not mean CO2-induced climate change, it means natural climate change.
And you are correct, temperatures do affect tornadoes. But there is no evidence that CO2 has enough of an effect to measurably raise the atmosphere’s temperature.
“it means natural climate change.”
Which, apart from urban micro-climates …. is the only climate change.
There is no evidence that humans have had any influence on the global climate at all.
Maybe because “global climate” is a fabrication coupled with the corruption of science?
You’re
The Guardian should turn to the WHO and get fact checked by the WHO’s Who of climate experts.
/SARCASM
I noticed in that graph, a spike in 1974. That was a bad year for tornadoes.
Divide the world into thousands of tiny geographic sections.
Examine each of those sections to find one where the trends are going in a direction you like.
Ignore all the sections where the trends do not support your position.
Hype the few and demand more money.
Can I get in line for the handouts? Wait, is there an end to that line…. it goes over the horizon.
People shouldn’t even bother looking at any of The Guardian’s climate coverage because after reading one they would realize it’s the same as listening to a broken record.