Alberta floods

[Accountability Now]

I certainly don't see any problem with the article's author throwing in the graphic... per the graphic, per the reason I used it, it does provide a perspective on the increased number of named storms, directly following the narrative of the WMO statement. Again, that's why I sourced/linked it.

again, you have now refused twice to provide a correlation between the graphic and the study you so failed on. This is now the third request/challenge for you to do so. Is there a problem?

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.

[waldo]

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.

what? So your claim is now shifted to suggest that because I didn't include NOAA when I associated the TIROS satellites to NASA, the 2013 (attributed to) NOAA statement is "invalidated"... the graphic identifying data sourced from NOAA is invalidated??? Oh my! Actually, to humour your nonsense, it was a joint undertaking emblematic of the partnership between NASA and NOAA in this regard. Better?

I seriously can't believe you just wrote that!

you're now simply repeating yourself. The 1855 reference/claim is not mine... again, it's a WMO claim/statement, one they attribute to NOAA. As I've suggested many times in the past, challenging you repeatedly, take your concerns up with NOAA.

as for your claim that you've "widdled" (what's a widdle?) the WMO claim down... again, it's attributed to NOAA. Why not call your buddy Landsea... I'm sure you can sort it our with him, hey?

[waldo]

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.

I manipulated nothing. You now state the study is inconsequential because you completely failed in both understanding it and how you presumed to use it. Ya, ya... now it's inconsequential since your pants are now down at your ankles!!!

[Accountability Now]

global levels??? What? Aren't you aware of those global hurricanes... of global floods... of global droughts... of global wildfires.....

you see... this is your most fundamental failing throughout this whole thread. Here's a handy reminder I just wrote to another MLW member - if you actually read it, perhaps it just might register!

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.

[waldo]

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.

there's certainly no trolling on my part. I'm coming at you directly, head on! No deflection, none whatsoever.

[Accountability Now]

what? So your claim is now shifted to suggest that because I didn't include NOAA when I associated the TIROS satellites to NASA, the 2013 (attributed to) NOAA statement is "invalidated"... the graphic identifying data sourced from NOAA is invalidated??? Oh my! Actually, to humour your nonsense, it was a joint undertaking emblematic of the partnership between NASA and NOAA in this regard. Better?

I seriously can't believe you just wrote that!

you're now simply repeating yourself. The 1855 reference/claim is not mine... again, it's a WMO claim/statement, one they attribute to NOAA. As I've suggested many times in the past, challenging you repeatedly, take your concerns up with NOAA.

as for your claim that you've "widdled" (what's a widdle?) the WMO claim down... again, it's attributed to NOAA. Why not call your buddy Landsea... I'm sure you can sort it our with him, hey?

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?

[waldo]

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.

like I said, aren't you aware of all that data associated with global hurricanes... global floods... global droughts... global wildfires....??? Haven't you seen any it... haven't you analyzed it?

you do know what weather is, right?

[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?

oh my! You're actually doubling down on this!!! Because I didn't mention NOAA when I referred to the TIROS satellites, the WMO statement (attributed to NOAA) and the graphic (identifying source data from NOAA) are invalidated! Oh my!

[waldo]

The NOAA never made the claim....the WMO did as per the NOAA numbers that the WMO manipulated.

ah yes... I just knew we'd get here. You went here a while back... where you claimed scientists and world-wide reputable organizations were manipulating data. Always trying to keep the poor denier man down!

[Accountability Now]

like I said, aren't you aware of all that data associated with global hurricanes... global floods... global droughts... global wildfires....??? Haven't you seen any it... haven't you analyzed it?

you do know what weather is, right?

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

[Accountability Now]

oh my! You're actually doubling down on this!!! Because I didn't mention NOAA when I referred to the TIROS satellites, the WMO statement (attributed to NOAA) and the graphic (identifying source data from NOAA) are invalidated! Oh my!

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?

[Accountability Now]

ah yes... I just knew we'd get here. You went here a while back... where you claimed scientists and world-wide reputable organizations were manipulating data. Always trying to keep the poor denier man down!

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?

[waldo]

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?

oh really! Considering that, as I'm aware, the first satellite operated by NOAA was launched in 1970, I do believe you'll need to adjust your talking point. hey? Oh wait..... how do you think that satellite was launched? What agency took care of that? So... NOAA never used any of that pre-66 data, hey? Really?

[Accountability Now]

oh really! Considering that, as I'm aware, the first satellite operated by NOAA was launched in 1970, I do believe you'll need to adjust your talking point. hey? Oh wait..... how do you think that satellite was launched? What agency took care of that? So... NOAA never used any of that pre-66 data, hey? Really?

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

[waldo]

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?

the here is... now. What you're saying now. You went to what you're saying now... previously... a while back.

we really need to capture this better. I'm interested in your thoughts/beliefs concerning your claims that scientists and reputable world-wide organizations have manipulated data. Is there a conspiracy angle you'd like to express? Say it ain't so!

it's quite easy for someone to claim data manipulation... to disparage scientists and reputable organizations. It's entirely another thing for someone to actually... explicitly... state what data has been manipulated - and support that claim.

[Accountability Now]

the here is... now. What you're saying now. You went to what you're saying now... previously... a while back.

we really need to capture this better. I'm interested in your thoughts/beliefs concerning your claims that scientists and reputable world-wide organizations have manipulated data. Is there a conspiracy angle you'd like to express? Say it ain't so!

it's quite easy for someone to claim data manipulation... to disparage scientists and reputable organizations. It's entirely another thing for someone to actually... explicitly... state what data has been manipulated - and support that claim.

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.

[waldo]

Good for you for trolling like that.

Troll on waldo

Any more trolling needed on this?

Anything else for you to troll on?

please sir, again... Moderator Charles Anthony has requested a play of the ball... not the player! Are you not capable of doing so?

[Accountability Now]

please sir, again... Moderator Charles Anthony has requested a play of the ball... not the player! Are you not capable of doing so?

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

[waldo]

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.

oh... now you're dodging. Now you're backpedaling to suggest it's a manipulated claim... not manipulated data! Interesting. But, but... you're applying this claim manipulation to NOAA... since NOAA is attributed as the source of the statement. Isn't that the same organization you've been so forceful in fronting and sourcing your own info from? Since your claim is so broad and sweeping, aren't you concerned that you tarnish some of the same scientists you claim... agree with you!!! Agree with you, oh my!

but really, even if... even if... the single sentence you isolated on... the one you pulled out and highlighted, was questionable, do you have more? Certainly, there must be more for you to make such broad and sweeping allegations to scientists/reputable organizations, at large. Surely, you must have more to warrant such an extreme claim on your part - surely!

[Accountability Now]

oh... now you're dodging. Now you're backpedaling to suggest it's a manipulated claim... not manipulated data! Interesting. But, but... you're applying this claim manipulation to NOAA... since NOAA is attributed as the source of the statement. Isn't that the same organization you've been so forceful in fronting and sourcing your own info from? Since your claim is so broad and sweeping, aren't you concerned that you tarnish some of the same scientists you claim... agree with you!!! Agree with you, oh my!

but really, even if... even if... the single sentence you isolated on... the one you pulled out and highlighted, was questionable, do you have more? Certainly, there must be more for you to make such broad and sweeping allegations to scientists/reputable organizations, at large. Surely, you must have more to warrant such an extreme claim on your part - surely!

Nope. Manipulated the data to make such a claim

[waldo]

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

no trolling on my part - none at all.

[Accountability Now]

no trolling on my part - none at all.

We'll let the moderators be the judge of that

[waldo]

Nope. Manipulated the data to make such a claim

ah... that's much better! There we have it. That sir, is you claiming fraud, trickery, deception, dishonesty. And here all I asked you was to simply directly challenge NOAA (the statement attributed to NOAA)... and you refused. Clearly, it's much easier for you to claim manipulated data, fraud, trickery, deception, dishonesty!

[Accountability Now]

ah... that's much better! There we have it. That sir, is you claiming fraud, trickery, deception, dishonesty. And here all I asked you was to simply directly challenge NOAA (the statement attributed to NOAA)... and you refused. Clearly, it's much easier for you to claim manipulated data, fraud, trickery, deception, dishonesty!

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

[waldo]

We'll let the moderators be the judge of that

pfffft! I have no interest in wasting further cycles/time engaging you. You have nothing to contribute... well... nothing other than a spurious attempt to globally extrapolate localized data, data from a subset, of a subset, within a minority of a minority of the global overall. Some... certainly not the waldo... would suggest you're manipulating that data! Oh my!