Post of the week

Here’s the post of the week. You can figure it out for yourself, if you can. Kind of your typical liberal ad hominem kind of stuff. Good for a laugh.

My, another liberal who has no real facts so you play the denigration game as proof of AGW.
…Two ridiculous, pathetic lies.  lol
I’ll tell you what. You keep claiming I can’t prove any bad figures were used, why don’t you provide me with all the good figures as proof positive that no bad figures were used?
...An impossible request (typical childish internet delay tactic) to deflect attention from the fact that you’ve got no proof the faulty figures were used.  None.
If you’re so sure about this you should already have all those good figures that went into the models right?
…A pathetic, infantile distortion of the nature of fact-finding, to deflect attention from the fact that you’ve got no proof the faulty figures were used.  None.
Since they use models they must adjust the data, too, so while you’re at it why don’t you show us the difference between the real and adjusted data so we can see how much fantasy (aka: warming) was perhaps added to these models?
…A pathetic, infantile distortion of the nature of fact-finding, to deflect attention from the fact that you’ve got no proof the faulty figures were used.  None.
….You’re getting very desperate now.
I’m also getting very sleepy………zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Surry dude if anyone sounds desperate it’s you. You’re also getting redundant.
Another classic example of CO2 Insanity.
Update – he just keeps getting better!
You are now reduced to nonstop lying.  I’m the only one in this conversation who’s posted proof of anything whatsoever.  You haven’t disproved a single statement I’ve made, while yours are half insane lies.

Go ahead, find us any proof whatsoever that this error is a problem for getting accurate temperature data.

Source: CMB

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Post of the Week, Sattelitegate

One response to “Post of the week

  1. Sadly, those untrained in the law fail to realize that the burden of proof, in this instance, has been placed very squarely on the shoulders of NOAA.

    The agency has implicated itself in a possible criminal conspiracy to not only defraud its national and international clients, who for years unwittingly spent millions buying the bogus data, but also taxpayers who now are fast realizing their tax dollars may have been intentionally misappropriated to implement a huge potential fraud.

    We know NOAA was aware its data had been corrupted. This is proven by the facts that over the past 5 years more and more other agencies declined to continue using the NOAA-16 readings because of ‘sensor degradation.’

    We also have proof that NOAA intentionally chose not to officially acknowledge the facts of ‘sensor degradation’ for at least 5 years. Thus there is a clear prima facie cased against the agency for malfeasance and conspiracy to defraud.

    I identified last week that the official NOAA-16 subsystem summary was complete up until May 2010 and it showed no record of any ‘sensor degradation.’ This week, rather inexplicably, the past 5 years’ of summaries has strangely disappeared from the NOAA-16 records so that no one else can verify such facts.

    NOAA are now circling the legal wagons as correspondence to me now comes via their legal department.Their senior legal counsel advises me that their CoastWatch partner, Michigan University, will in due course address my questions about NOAA’s failing satellite! Why the buck passing?

    How on earth can Michigan Uni be better placed than NOAA to explain faults emanating from NOAA’s junk box satellite?

    The questions that NOAA needs to address are as follows:

    (1.) Why did it take a report from a member of the public leading to my article that went viral before NOAA removed the offending ‘images,’ ( not data, please note!);
    (2.) Why won’t NOAA confirm or deny whether NOAA-16’s automatically generated and unchecked bogus high temp. data may have been fed into innumerable international climate models?
    (3.) Why did NOAA have removed the last 5 years of records from NOAA-16’s subsystem summary proving the agency had never made any official statement acknowledging any ‘sensor degradation’ issues? (My examination of the NOAA-16′ subsystem summary last week showed notations for the period 2005-2010 indicative of willful omission to publish such incriminating facts).
    (4.) How can Mich. Uni. possibly know better than NOAA the answers to my questions specifically seeking disclosure of the full facts as to the ‘sensor degradations’ NOAA has finally fully admitted to?