Accountability Now

Deflection #2

Deflection #1

I guess you didn't read this quote from before:

Look me up when you decide to actually take up my challenges and back up the statements that you have purpoted on this forum.

No where....hey? Really? No where? Again...you forget that this a written forum. I have highlighted increased intensity and global just to show you exactly where you have said this. I am quite sure you repeated this "consenses" a number of times. This one really burns you doesn't it. Caught in your tracks on this lie. I think its time to hand this over to the moderator as your trolling and desire to derail this thread is a detriment to this forum. Of course I forgot to add this little ditty of your increased activity.... waldo, on 15 Jul 2013 - 02:29 AM, said: 2. a graphic detailing the number of Atlantic named storms across the period 1950-2012, showing increased activity from a 1995 reference point. So which is it waldo? Increased activity, intenisty....you seem to say both while saying nothing at all.

So the paper still works for you....ok so there is no global increase in intensity. Perfect. That's all you need to say

Show me a quote from anyone in the NOAA (NHC, HRD, SSD....any of them) that has said that quote which was actually purpoted by the WMO. Show me waldo. Otherwise stop your incessant trolling and actually contribute to this thread by leaving it.

Is that seriously the best you can do? Honestly? You provided me a paper from 2000? 13 years ago? I guess you have forgotten some of the small work that has been done since then....like say the RE-ANALYSIS project which only started in 2000. Do you possibly think that during this process they started to have a better understanding for what was reliable and unreliable. Is this how far you have stretched your strawman? Wow. My stomach hurts from the laughter! Of course you could be reminded of some of Landsea's recent work from 2012 and comments AFTER the Re-Analysis: Or perhaps this one which is CURRENTLY on the NOAA site.... Would you like me to go back to the 1950s and cite you some papers that show that smoking is healthy? Or perhaps I could find some historical quotes from scientists that believed the world was flat? What ever blows your hair back waldo. Just as long as you can sleep at night. Nice try on your data manipulation. Or should I say nice FAIL. Of course the one nice thing about your article which again you did not provide a link for (scared I assume) is that I was able to find this little ditty. You keep pushing the concept of INCREASED ACTIVITY on a GLOBAL SCALE. Of course the only data you have ever pushed was local regional examples even though I have repeated asked you a number of times to show such data. Well..read what the very paper you are flaunting had to say about it. Again....you have a choice here. You can either assume that this paper your are pushing is out of date and that the reliable data is in fact from 1966 onward (like Landsea has recently said) or you can accept the paper and the statement that there is no global increase in activity. You pick. In the mean time, I will sit back and wait for you to repsond to my challenge to provide proof that the NOAA stated your purpoted claim and/or that global data exists showing an INCREASE in extremes. I will admit that I am getting bored waiting on you to provide this.

This isn't even fun anymore....its kind of sad really. In your own sinlge reply you state that the 'reliable data' started in ......wait for it.....1971!!!!! LMFAO. Too funny. Feel like contradicting yourself anymore? As for Landsea and his study on the "RECENT" increase in activity....what does that have to do with the goats in China? Seriously? He's noticing a trend that he feels should be watched for FUTURE developments. I guess you have conveniently forgotten the umpteen quotes that I gave directly from Landsea discussing the relation to past trends.....and of course to your so beloved 1855 bench mark. Again...the fact that you are now arguing about the increase from 1995 to present says all I need to know about your pulse on the original claim of worst since 1855. You really backpeddled on that one...hey? Soon it will be worst since last year..... I can't help but think of how confused you are. We have mostly focused on the North Atlantic basin and hurricanes because that is the statement that YOU provided. You have blabbered on about a global level now for countelss posts but you keep coming up with NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP to back it up. At least I brought a bit of global flavor as I posted data and statements from the ESCAP Typhoon Committee and you still bury your head. I can't hold your hand on this waldo... So you can't step up and face the challenge. No problem... Again I will help you out....the NOAA never did purpot that claim that you so proudly but blindly trot on this thread. More importantly, there is no global data that backs up the over all sentiment that the WMO is trying to push upon unsuspecting warming activists like you. On a side note....I think the funniest part is when you try to divert the attention away by asking me to "seek a retraction form the WMO". You have done other times when you have no ability to argue on your own. LMFAO!!!! Good luck waldo.

I'm not claiming anything rather I am reporting a categorically sound FACT that they started using satellite data in 1966. This was stated in the NOAA report as well as by Chris Landsea (NOAA). I have given you the links and the quote but yet you still choose to deny it. So are you saying the people at the NOAA are wrong about when THEY started using this data? Are you also saying the sky is brown? Perhaps the earth is flat? What other FACTS would you like to deny? Again...I took your suggestion head on by addressing the error in a 30 year period is significantly more than a 160 year period as demonstrated by the most reliable data we have. I have also shown that I can pick out other 30 year intervals that have shown higher intensity (if you are so intent on sticking with a small sliver of time.) Of course if you choose to ask me for this answer again , full well knowing that I have answered it, then I will consider you to be trolling. That one claim is now being used by numerous activist groups all purpoting this claim...with you being one of them. Ignorance is being spread because data has been misused and you seem to be A-OK with it. How shocking! Do you always use false data to serve your point? I guess you do believe the world is flat? Again....I did not have to say it....the professionals already did. I have cited Chris Landsea, one of the world's authorities on hurricane data who also works directly for the NOAA, who said this data is unreliable. I have also quoted scientists from ESCAP's Typhoon Commitee who said the same thing. Are you possibly suggesting that these authorities in the field of tropical storms are wrong about the data that they have spent their entire lives working with and continue to work on this very day? Is that seriously what you are suggesting? Please stop wasting bandwitdth with such wasteful trolling. You are adding nothing to this conversation with such quips. The cross that you have to bear right now is that I have categorically blown holes in the organization that you so blindly follow. I have proven that the science they push and the statements they issue (the same ones that you purpot) are based on spurious data. You now have to go forward knowing this and second guessing everything. Of course, there is still some unfinished business. I have challenges out to you for the following two items from a previos post: 1. Show a peer reviewed study which encompasses the rise is extremes based on global data 2. Provide proof that your claim which says 2001-2010 was the most active decade for hurricane activity since 1855 was originated by the NOAA. You absolutely scurried away from this one the first time I asked you so I will give you the chance to face the challenge one more time.

I am flat out saying that the WMO manipulated the data by ignoring the spurious nature of the data prior to 1966. Furthermore I am also flatout saying that the WMO has falsely attributed this statement as if the NOAA was saying it (instead it should say Citing numbers from the NOAA). I believe I posted this link before but I'm not sure. Its a gem from Chris Landsea (who of course is one of the world's authorities on hurricanes and works/represents the NOAA directly). http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html So again...take any satellite you want but the NOAA did not use satellite data until 1966 therefore making your Climate Central chart unreliable. Done! As for the claim itself....if the NOAA has numerously stated that the data is only reliable after 1966, then WHY would they actual back a claim or make the claim themselves that 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855? Why? The answer....they didn't. The WMO made the claim 'citing NOAA numbers'. The NOAA never said it they just provided the statistics for this. The WMO ran with it knowing that the numbers prior to 1855 were unreliable and manipualted the data to serve their agenda. They also mislead the public by saying "According to the NOAA" and not saying "Citing data from NOAA" like these guys did: The bottomline is this: 1. WMO manipuated the spurious data to work to their self driven benefit 2. WMO's statement alludes that the NOAA is backing their claim when they have outright stated that any data prior to 1966 is unreliable. The NOAA did not make this claim and you know it. 3. The only data that can be used is from 1966 forward....so your entire WMO claim dating back to 1855 is absolutely false. 4. It is very difficult to believe organizations like WMO that make future claims once they have stetched the numbers so much and incorrectly. Its not even funny any more that you are even debating these FACTS! Of course, if I am wrong then I welcome you to provide the data from a peer reviewed study showing the increase in frequency or intensity for global events (of course on a global level). Additionally you can provide the NOAA site or study that says they back the WMO statement that you so adamantly protect.

One could consider the trolling as work...I wouldn't but you might.

Show me one of your peer reviewed scientific studies that contains these global facts. Come on...have a little pride in your argument.

Based on numbers from the NOAA. I can use they're numbers too to make false claims but it doesn't make it their fault. The WMO made the false claim. Need that any clearer?

I thought you were done? There is no global data. How can there be a subset of nothing? I provided my conclusions from the most reliable long term data (landfall hurricanes) which is confirmed by the scientist that you based your premise on. Conversely you based yours on nothing!

You said I should challenge the NOAA. Why would I do that when it was the WMO that manipulated the NOAA data?

This is the second time you've stated this. Will you say it a third time after another thousand trolling posts?

Why would I challenge the NOAA? The WMO made the claim. Please get that straight

We'll let the moderators be the judge of that

Nope. Manipulated the data to make such a claim

Thank you for repeatedly showing my requests for you to stop trolling. I'm sure the moderators will find this summary useful.

It's been easy to do all of this. These scientists claimed that this past decade was the worst since 1855. They used this claim knowing that the data prior to 1970s was spurious. It's a manipulated claim. Pretty simple...I can explain it again if you want.

Nope. The PDF from the NOAA specifically states this as fact. Of course don't let facts get in the way of your truths.

Read what you just said....we'd get here? Went here awhile back? Which is it waldo? I've said it from the start and have proved it. Anything else for you to troll on?

Don't care about TIROS. You can use Sputnik if you really want. The NOAA didn't start using any satellite data until 1966. Any more trolling needed on this?