Accountability Now

So you have none. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. Troll on waldo

Yup...its all based on NOAA data so why deviate now unless you wanted to deflect.....you wouldn't do that.....would you? The NOAA never made the claim....the WMO did as per the NOAA numbers that the WMO manipulated. Of course you fell right in line by foolishly repeaing this quote. I also love how you tell me to take it up wth them. Obviously you can't handle me hey?

So in other words you have nothing? No data just a bunch of local/regional examples. Oh wow....I honestly can't believe the moderators of this thread would let you waste bandwitdth like this. You have completely derailed this thread by circling, deflecting and jumping up and down screaming but yet you have nothing to back up your claim of global levels. Good for you for trolling like that.

I have alredy said...the study is inconsquential. What matters is that you maniupuated data...data of which was flawed by using activity in the title when there is no resemblance of intensity.

Nothing personal....all fact. Your arguments in this thread are weak and can't be upheld which is why you deflect and circle around in a trolling manner. I trust the moderators of this forum will be interested in that.

Good for NASA and TIROS. The NOAA started using satelitte data in 1966 as per http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf. And your WMO claim was 'attributed to NOAA' ....right? Speaking of your WMO claim which of course stated that 2001-2010 was the worst decade since 1855. Glad to see that we've widdled it down to the 1960s. I guess your claim of 1855 was a bit much hey? You should have just accepted my suggestion that comparing to that early of a time was not possible. It would have saved you bunch of time.

I'm not sure if the floods were objectively worse (ie larger flooding) but it may have caused more damage. I was just reading an article today that the province of Alberta is taking a hardline on people or companies that choose to rebuild in these flood plains. The article went on to say that Calgary isn't the only area with this issue as Fort McMurray is almost entirely on a flood plain.

Already done. Troll on...

You have yet to show ANY correlations to global levels. ZERO, ZIP, NATTA!! Keep trolling.

Have you called Climate Central to complain yet that they used their graphic to correlate to their article?

Nice try on the bait. I have played the ball. I would never side with someone that presents the close minded, skewd arguments that you have. So if I had to pick sides, I certainly would want to keep an open mind to the pure and unadultered scientific facts that seem to evade you.

Ive already stated exactly what I've claimed. How many more times do you need to see it on this well documented forum. Or are you just trolling now?

If we have to take sides then I will gladly take the side opposite of you.

And I have shown that my interpretations that spurious data is being used for hurricane analysis was backed by numerous, prominents scientists as per this. But yet you have aligned yourself in blind faith behind the WMO consensus without any numbers showing a global trend rather the use of local examples. Its not a matter of wrong perspective for you.....rather you have no perspective.

It doesn't correlate? So why does it appear in Climate Centrals article about Emannuel? Are you suggesting they are wrong? Are you suggesting they are manipuating data? Please tell me? The chart was created by Climate Central and they chose to implment it within an article they wrote on their website...so clearly they must feel it correlates. I trust at this point 'the waldo' has contacted Climate Central to tell them the error of their ways? As for the study.....I don't need to read the study to know that you are using the same data as someone who conclusively disagrees with you. That is my only point in bringing up Emmanuel. It proved the point and I moved on but feel free to keep stirring in your projections, causal ties, and basic lack of proof for anything.

The article was actully referenced on the Climate Central home page. I didn't have to search anything once I found the Climate Central page but you go ahead and search deep into the back pages for your stuff. It has all sorts of bearing on this thread. My entire point is that activists like you will use whatever data you can if it serves your purpose. This chart was intended to proove the point of someone who disagrees with you and your concensus however you have no problems coming up and snatching that little ditty when it serves your purpose. If I were arguing the same thing as Emmanuel then I am 100% sure that you would have steered clear of that chart altogether!. Very self serving and very proving of my point.

Again...the failure on this is completely on your end. I have posted numerous times where Chris Landsea and other reknown scientists in this field have admitted that earlier years data is not reliable but you apparently know more than them? Most specifically....polar orbitting satellite coverage didn't commence until 1966 not 1960. So at the very least 27% of your data did NOT include satellites. Of course, the first satellites and data coming in 1966 can't possible compare to the data being delivered today. I have to believe that bugs were incurred and improvements were made largely in the first 10 years. As such stating 1975 as the start of the robust satellite era is quite accurate. Again....you circle around things that even you have already claimed. Amazing. Its not what I categorize....its what people like Chris Landsea have said about it. If they have gone to such efforts to say that the data is unreliable then who are you to suggest it is? I don't feel like circling on this so I will again provide the link to the previous post showing the numerous scientists addressing this issue here If you choose to ignore their warmings about the spurious data then go right ahead but that would be another fail on your part. LOL. You have already discussed this in your attempted claim at fail #1. Is that your only way to make it three fails? Now you are cicling yourself!! Please look above for the explaination as above specifically noting that satellites started in 1966 not 1960 which easily brings the number to 27% assuming of course that the data being pushed out in 1966 was the exact same as it is today (which its not) Defining climate by 30 year increments is further proof of a self serving and manipulating tactic used by WMO. I guess the long term stuff wasn't working out for them so they had to switch it up? I guess we can't look at ice ages or warming periods or CO2 past 1980 anymore....that damn 30 years.

Again...you have yet to supply anything showing the global correlation at all, rather you choose to take issue with me discussing the local/regional points that your study focused on. You took extra effort to quote the claim from the WMO report stating that 2001-2010 was the most active decade for the North Atlantic basin....the local and regional example. Where are the numbers globally? Don't confuse the fact that I was easily able to poke holes all through the assumed data that I don't understand a global example versus local. The problem however is that if your global example is going to be built off the local examples, then you should ensure that you choose GOOD local examples and not pick the items that rely on data that are questinable at best. Of course, you don't have to believe me that they are questionable....Chris Landsea and a wide assortment of other scientists have said the same thing. You just choose to ignore this. You also choose to ignore that landfall hurricanes are the most accurate long term data we have AS STATED by the scientist you quoted your numerously emphasized statement. You can choose to ignore these things but don't expect me to. Nope. No failure here just more manipulation on your part. Your focus extracts 40 years of data when 160 years is available. The percentage for error decreases by the square root of the sample size....as such the larger the sample size the less error. It is clear that you are picking that 40 year period because it serves your purpse. However it would be just as easy to look at another 40 year period, say 1871-1910 where the hurricane activity was most active 40 years. I personally like to reduce the error and go with the largest sample size. Based on this size 2001-2010 was normal. There are obvious highs and lows in the landfall hurricane cycle. That is why they call it a cycle. Your interpretation would be equivalent to saying there was a sharp decrease in temperature during an ice age compare to the previous warm period. That is what happens in cycles. These cycles creates 'norms' or activity that we would expect over a long term. The period of 2001-2010 is well within the norm based on all the long term data present...plain and simple. That fact that you choose not to see this is not my fault howver my interpretation is dead on.

Sure...let's recap. You have stated that there is a global increase yet neither you or your supplied WMO article goes into any detail to show numbers that correlate on a global scale. There is nothing showing the total number of global cyclones rather THEY chose to use the Northern Atlantic basin which is a local/regional example. More specifically, THEY chose very specific local/regional examples (as per your orginal supplied quote) to use Hurricane Katrina as their example of an extreme event when it clearly is NOT. You have focused on the statement that Hurricane Katrina was the most devasting hurricane of the decade. Two other hurricanes in 2005 were more intense than Katrina. Hurricane Charley one year previous to Katrina hit Catgory 4 at landfall contrast to Katrina which was only 3. Of course Charley only killed 40 people verus the thousands killed by Katrina so which one makes more sense to use? To me it is nothing more than agendra driven manipulation that they chose Katrina for their example as the number of deaths as nothing to do with the objectivity of the force of a hurricane. If storms are getting more intense...then use Charley as your example....not Katrina.....but of course that doesn't make people fear anything....does it? All of the data that you have submitted to support your so-called global approach has ALL been local/regional examples. As such I have worked with what you have supplied such as the below chart again localized to the North Atlantic basin. You continue to gripe about this global connection yet you have nothing to support it. However when I easily pick apart your local/regional examples, all that you can retort with is that the argument is global. That is what we call circling. I have responded to your references countless times now. In fact you have even responded to my repsonses already. This is the clearest evidence that you are simply ignoring the facts in order to drag on a conversation for your own enjoyment. Go back and read as this forum records it all. As for activity...I am now certain that you don't know what activity means. You conveniently pick and choose between frequency and intensity however as per below, the NHC defines activity as both. Again..I easily point out that your chart above shows nothing in regards to intensity but yet choses the term activity. http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/basics/faqs/hurricanes#activity

You see waldo...this is the beauty of a written fourm....you can't hide behind the BS that you normally spew as its all written for everyone to see. The VERY FIRST POST I made said this: Did you see that waldo? Would you like me to spell it out for you? NUMBERS OR SEVERITY. Numbers of course relating to frequency and severity relating to intensity. The combination of which results in activity. You are UTTERLY HOPELESS. I suggest you try your antics on forums that don't keep records of the crap you say. But lets stick with your profound discussion of activity because either you don't know what it is or you are proving my original point that activitst LIKE YOU will manipute anything they can to prove the point. Let's look at the little ditty that you have posted from Climate Central COUNTLESS times: Wait...what is that? YOUR CHART is citing ACTIVITY? Why I see nothing on there about instensity? Only frequency. Hmmmm....at this point you can either admit that your content is full or crap! I trust you won't stop there so I'll help you once again. The conent from the above chart ranges from 1950 to 2012...63 years. However how many of those years are reliable? Well I could show you again by virtue of this written forum that all the experts agree that the early data was unreliable....but I don't need to prove that to you. Why? Because you said it: So...you have botched your whole arguement a number of times by posting this little ditty while whole time while 26 years of the 63 years on YOUR little ditty are completely unreliable. That is almost 40%. 40%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your argument is not even an arguement any more it is a complete and utter JOKE. Don't worry...I'm not done yet. I noticed that you never made a citation as to the article that you pulled your little ditty from.Obviously hiding something, hey? Googling Climate Central I was able to find the article and oh boy was I surprised and of course happy to find it (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204) Through your entire botched attempt at posing an arguement you have so cowardly steered away from saying anything was you. But you did say: So lets just be clear....Emmanuel FLAT OUT disagrees with you and the article is using that graphic to drive home HIS point and you thought you could just steal it and MANIPULATE it to serve your purpose. EXACTLY my point with activists LIKE YOU. Stop manipulating data....the truth will set you free!! And of course the nail in your coffin... So.....you can take all your global warming BS and cram it for at least another 20 years because right now you have zip, zero, nothing, natta, zilch. The one positive out of all of this is that i realized why you flagrantly circle around and try to keep arguements going. I have to beleive its that this forum is the only chance you get to talk to people. Having people not respond to you would be devastating which is why you will do what ever you can to keep this conversation going. Unfortunatley as far as I'm concerned...I have educated you enough and I am happy with my solid 3 and 0 record.

Its absolutely embarrassing even having a conversation with you. You are either wasting bandwidth by ignoring the basic facts placed right in front of you or you lack the basic comprehension that is expected in elementary school. Sadly I am certain it's the latter. You keep hiding behind WMO but you fail to admit that all the documents I cited in my recent bazinga post came directly from the WMO or WMO joint effort projects. The WMO disagrees with you. The NOAA disagrees with you. ESCAP Typhoon committe disagrees with you. EVERYONE disagrees with you. This is your worst childhood memories all coming back...isn't it? Like I said...it's time for the adults to talk which means you can run off and play make believe somewhere else.

No refusal here....the statement from the WMO posted by YOU is inaccurate.

Your absolute deflection and idiotic rambling a wont help you. "Oh...i didn't say it....it was the WMO!!! not me!!!!" Have a little pride waldo. You sound so pathetic when you flip flop like this. You posted the content and it absolutely blown up in your face. Do you fail like this in every aspect of your life?

As per usual, I will waldosize the whole conversation for you. You started off by obliviously cutting and pasting your so trusted article (of course without adding any insight of your own). In your claim you highlight that the world is seeing such weather extremes like Katrina....which took me two seconds to show everyone that Katrina was not extreme and not even the worst. Secondly you so proudly boast the statement "2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin." My entire arguement has been that activists like you go and flaunt these scare tactics when the basis of these are simply not accurate. I spent numerous posts showing you examples of how the data prior to 1961 was not reliable and therefore making such a statement was not possible. And now....the experts, the very scientists that you so admire have been quoted stating EXACTLY just that. And yes...that is a bazinga!! This goes beyond your standard statistical propagation of errors. They all fully acknowledge that complete data sets are missing and the ones they do have are not reliable. Adding to the fact that even today's numbers carry uncertainty. Point set and match waldingo. I would say try again next time but its getting boring making you look this bad. I love how after this post you so cowardly say "I never said there wasn't errors". Lmfao!!! Seriously...stop flip flopping all over the place. The fact is that you offered up a statement not having the first clue if it was true and now you look like a pompous buffoon trying to back track!!!! So I suggest you move along son and let the men continue this conversation.

That is priceless! LMFAO!!!