just quickly to explain what that means and talk more about how the storm measured up, i want to check in with chad myers and the weather center. chad, explain the ranking system. when you get an ef-5, that means some building doesn t exist anymore. by the three, you re losing an outside wall, four, you ll lose a lot of walls and five you ll lose everything. 2 you lose a couple of shingles. five you lose everything. that s where we are now. 200, 210 miles per hour. when that tornado was on the ground as an ef-4, this is what it looked like. notice kind of the purple ball looking thing above the word powerful. that is where the debris was flying around. we saw so many pictures of that debris flying around. now we can look inside the storm and see how high that debris was picked up, sucked up and inside of the atmosphere. in fact, we know that parts of
when you get an ef-5, that means some building doesn t exist anymore. by the three, you re losing an outside wall, four, you ll lose a lot of walls and five you ll lose everything. that s where we are now. 200, 210 miles per hour. when that tornado was on the ground as an ef-4, this is what it looked like. now we can look inside the storm and see how high that debris was picked up, sucked up and inside of the atmosphere. we know now that checks, photographs were found in tulsa, almost a hundred miles away. that little part that you see there, that three dimensionality, that s the debris that was picked up in the tornado and thrown around. it went from an ef-0 all the way up to an ef-4 in 10 minutes. and then it got even stronger. it got up to that 200, 210 miles per hour. and there are many homes out there that you just can t find anything. the fact that we only lost 24
feasible. getting out of it won t hurt us because it was such a toothless agreement. this many countries involved in something and they re all in agreement it probably won t do anything. if this doesn t cause a recession the united states and china it is not strong enough to healthy environment. you are talking about a need to curb consumption, not spend more on alternatives. it doesn t tax consumption, doesn t cut income to offset that, won t do anything. bottom line, these jobs, solar jobs like we heard from john because it is such an efficient way to make power when you compare the people in solar compared to gas powered plants or nuclear or call it is absurdly high to the deck of the panel is all over and it is not an economically efficient way to make energy and doesn t deal with the core problem which is overconsuming energy and negative output so it is wrong on so many fronts. dagen: if you look at the climate agreement, to meet the