Accountability Now

You posted your claim...I asked questions.... and you continue to deflect. I'm still waiting on your answers

No claim..just questions. Deflect away!

Discussion? I asked you a question which you refuse to answer. Hardly a discussion... Still waiting for an answer. Or would you prefer to continue deflecting?

So no answer still?

You made the claim and I asked a question of your claim. Still waiting for your answer....if you can!

Nope..the Alberta Transportation report said that all the dams do nothing to contain flood water. But you chose to ignore it as that didn't help your arguement. Clearly you are grasping

I guess you don't like numbers. Too bad...true science uses them effectively.

I have yet to make a claim about what caused those past floods or extreme temperatures. I asked you a question which you clearly can't answer but yet continue to march on with your claim. Clearly your claim is not very strong if it can't answer that one question!!

I'm not sure if anything is settled but it sure doesnt help to be claiming every event as a global warming caused issue.

Unsubstantiated opinion? I have shown you that these floods and temperatures have occurred in the past. As much as you don't want to hear it, that is a fact and not opinion. Do I need to break out the dictionary again and define fact? You state the increases occurrence of extreme events and then use Calgary as your example? This proves exactly what I'm talking about! I have countless times provided you with the floods that have occurred in the last 100 years which clearly show there were many more floods in the first 100 years than recently. But you continue to claim increased frequency? Again...you are using baseless facts to try and prove something. Your audience knows this. So...back to my question? What caused the temperatures and floods of the past to be so severe? Was it the jet stream then too? Was it global warming? Or something else? What was it?

The funny thing is that I am a true fence sitter when it comes to the whole global warming thing. However, whenever I see global warming beleivers using baseless numbers it makes me strongly question EVERYTHING else they say. I tend to believe that is why your cause isn't taken as seriously as it should. Too many fanatics out there saying the wrong things. So as for your suggestion about a more accepting audience, I think you need to consider what's going to happen to your audience if you continue to spew your baseless facts.

Again...you are mistaken. I have brought up zero 'what ifs'. I easily pointed out that similar occurances if not more extreme occurances have happened in the past. These are not 'what ifs'. They are fact. The only "what if' is you making claims that the jet stream caused these. I asked you questions about your 'what if' scenario and you refused to answer. If you don't feel like evaluating your 'what if' then don't post it in a forum.

I guess you can't answer my questions. Apparently science isn't your friend.

The highest temperature ever was at the same spot in 1913. What caused that to happen? Redding has hit 116F five times in the last 25 years. (http://sacramento-ca.knoji.com/10-alltime-hottest-weather-temperature-days-in-redding-california/) Were all those jet stream related? What caused the 1920 night to be so hot? Jet stream again? The previous record was 60F which happened four times including July 5, 1940 and July 6, 1924. What caused these temperatures to be so low? Do you think its possible that this same perfect storm for jet stream activity has happened in the past?

Yes...I will accept your unconditional surrender. You should have done this at the start and saved a bunch of time

You are making this way too easy. I guess you didn't hear about the the Alberta Transportation report after 2005? http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/06/20130626-070852.html

Guess its too big for you. It means to hypothesize. Look it up http://www.yourdictionary.com/hypothecating Again....you highlight ALL THE WRONG WORDS. Here...I'll help you again. All of your so called studies reference extreme weather events and their increased frequency. This flood was the first of its kind in 81 years. It was MARGINALLY worse that that one. Trying to tie this example to those studies is as practical as walking around with your tin foil hat. Of course I ingored these suggestions just like I ingore the nammering of children talking about their imaginary friends.

I would love to spend more time explaining this to you and educating you on this subject however I don't speak jibberish (which appears to be your native tongue. It could be drunkenese too. Not sure). Its funny thought because I thought mathematics was a universal language but you don't speak that either. Tough life hey?

Kind of like you making up outlandish claims about the severity of this flood?

You are drunk aren't you? Or just clearly that daft to not understand. You forgot to hightlight the most important word....SEPARATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I looked at the Bow and the Elbow SEPARATELY!!!!!!! The table of worst ever was referenced to the Bow and by your own recent admission, you apparently knew that....which is not true. I then compared the Elbow using the Alberta Environent table which was also cited in that same posting. I'm truly sorry that you can't keep up. Honestly. I will try my best to waldosize these conversations in the future.

You're exactly right Boges. The hurricanes are great examples as people are often misguided as what classifies the 'worst'. Some people use amount of damage/cost the hurricane caused, others use amount of deaths. However if we basing this on climate change and scientifc numbers then we should be using it based on highest wind speed at landfall. Looking at your Katrina example, it ranks first for cost (when looking at 2010 dollars. The 1926 (SE Florida) hurricane still beats it when adjusted for inflation, poputlation and housing. Katrina ranks 3rd for the deadliest hurricanes again behind 1900 Galveston and 1928 Okeechobee. Having said this, the majority of deaths were caused by the levee breaking and the resulting floods....not from the brute force of the hurricane. However, it doesn't even appear in the top five for highest windspeed.

Honestly...it makes their cause lose face when they claim stuff like this. How many times do they need to cry wolf?

I could at least see the claim when we have a single event that is much more powerful than anything we see in history. Or if we get more frequency of major storms. But this Calgary flood was marginally worse than the worst ever flood on the Bow and not even as bad as the worst flood on the Elbow. More so, we have seen a higher frequency of major floods in the first half of the 1900s than we have in the second half or in the 2000s. No increased intensity or frequency!

You are hypothecating where as I am correlating. Which one makes more sense? Your hypothesis will not be a scientific fact until it can be backed up with statistical proof. At this point the statisctical proof shows that this flood is within the realm of past floods meaning there is no additional force adding to it. Further meaning that your hypothesis DOES NOT APPLY to this scenario. At this point I could have just as much luck with a hypothesis saying the mountain goats are eating away all the vegetation thus causing increased flooding. OR....global cooling is happening causing the ground to freeze longer thus not letting percolation into the soil thus causing the flooding. These too would just be ideas but not facts. Science is based on facts so if you want it to be your friend...then get used to dealing with facts.

Attacking you? Asking you to back up your outlandish claims with a quote is attacking? If that is attacking, then I will continue to attack you as you have stated that I am wrong and you are not willing and moreso NOT ABLE to back it up. So...the very first post I replied. Well....that would be post 91. And don't worry about going back to look for it as I pasted it here for you to see the error in your ways. Let's see...the top 10 list I provided was from the Bow River at Calgary. Still don't believe me? Check out the data from Envrionment Canada which backs up every number for every year. http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/applications/H2O/report-eng.cfm?station=05BH004&report=peak&data=flow&year=2011&yearb=&yeare= Going back to your original claim.....you said that this flood was double 1932 and four times worse than 2005. So as per above, I looked at 2013 first showing the relationship for the Bow and Elbow separately. The proof for 1932 was all I really needed to sqaush your lame statement however I thought to myself...why not squash his entire statement. So I went back to the Bow for 2005. Now by this time I assumed you didn't need me to quote the 2013 flowrates for the Bow again. I really trusted you could look two sentences above and see the 1700. I also trusted that you would be referencing the top 10 list yourself which showed the peak flow on the Bow in Calgary was 791 cms which of course still remains closer to DOUBLE.....exactly like I said but yet you still dispute. Later on I also showed you numbers for the Elbow from your beloved Sarcee location were 692cms versus 338cms back in 2005. Again....not four times but only double. I never should have trusted that you had the mental capabilities to keep up to this seminar that I was giving you. I will keep your limited capabilites in mind the next time you throw out alarmist, outlandish statements.