Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
Recent Comments
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Bob G on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Francis Barnett on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Jimmy Haigh on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- czechlist on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Jimmy Haigh on The Anti-Greta
- Jimmy Haigh on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on The Anti-Greta
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
I posted on that site, Seems a nice chap who hates the BBC and the Daily Mail more than actually getting some scientific data points to back up his claim. All he has done has found a web site that has a value that he “prefers” so he pushes that forward rather than being scientific.
No wonder he has moderation on, probably gets his ass ripped all the time from his bumblings and so has to put it on, so he feels like he is “always right”
Glad you are not like that Steve, we have our differences but you always put the comments in, much appreciated. Raises you above that dumbfuuck. He reads the Daily Mail as well. Hmmm….
Andy
PS Surprised you have not gone more on Atlantic hurricane season recently, that has been a damp squib. So few At. hurricanes and lots of ice ! 🙂
Andy, You’re being daft! You say “All he has done has found a web site that has a value that he ‘prefers'”. The website he has so randomly cherry-picked is only the Philipines Government Met Office. In view of the fact the event they are reporting is in fact meteorology in the Philippines, they are far more authoritative than the luvvies at the BBC. (Also, more scientific and professional)
But if you would prefer to be informed by the BBC – feel free . . .
… and it was a Cat 4 after all! 🙂
I mean, only a Cat 4!! 🙂 🙂
It is almost as though they are confusing the kilometres and miles per hour and then happily let the error stand since it supports the “its worse than we thought” obsessive-compulsive alarmism.
We have our own destructive Yolanda, who may in fact be deadlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tht9tolijjY
“The U.S. Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center said maximum sustained winds in the Category 5 storm were 195 mph with gusts to 235 mph.” (but it slowed after making landfall, which is to be expected.)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-typhoon-haiyan-superstorm-sandy-katrina-20131108,0,4183555.story#axzz2k4sTa9Lx
So, who do you believe – LA Times, JTWC’s satellite measurements, or PAGASA’s wind measurements ten (10) meters above the ground at the point of landfall? (Hint: by convention, hurricane wind speed 10 meters above the ground is the official wind speed measurement.)
Filipinos know their storms.
Comparing estimated wind speeds at altitude hours earlier over the open ocean, to other hurricanes’ measured ground speeds is something that only a liar or fool would do.
“Sustained winds of 235km/h (147mph) with gusts of 275km/h (170mph)”
“One of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall”
The carrier pigeon bearing the right story finally arrives at the BBC :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24887337
I think you’ve jumped the gun on this one, and at the same time repeated the mistakes you criticize others for. The storm path is evidence of massive destruction and death and rather than wait for the evidence to emerge you fed off the initial incomplete reports. Poor example, Steve. We expect better. And for context, I am here on the ground in the Philippines.
If you had faced 195 MPH winds, you wouldn’t be talking with us now. I have no idea what you are complaining about.
Did I write anywhere that I faced 195mph winds? You are beginning to reveal yourself as a bit of an arse!
What are you complaining about? You make vague unsupported accusations, and then get upset that they piss me off.
I get that you are pissed off about exaggerated global warming claims in the media (I agree with that), but the premature thrust of your post is that Yolanda was hyped and exaggerated – turns out you jumped the gun, it was a huge storm. You (unlike the AGM-ists) should acknowledge your mistake, or stand accused of hypocrisy.
The wind speeds were hyped and exaggerated for the cynical purpose of claiming that storms are getting worse. That was the only reason I re-blogged this post.
Stop pretending that you can read my mind.
Who’s pretending to read whose mind? The jury is back – you are a hypocrite.
And you are now spam.
A feeling you probably know only too well and complain about.
In this Typhoon Haiyan’s case stevengoddard made big mistake when he/she/they starts belittle catastrophe. I wish better better tomorrow.
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz