Accountability Now

I don't deny the Arctic, global warming or climate change...but I absolutely deny their correlation to this event. See this is the problem with you left wing nut jobs...you want people to take you serious but you keep crying wolf on everything and anything. So when you claim global warming causes a completely normal flood...well it makes me question ALL of your beliefs! Keep crying wolf and no one is going to care!! By the way...it looks like even science doesn't want to be friends with you!

Come on big shot. SHOW ME!!!! Back it up!!! This is a written forum where everything we've said is recorded and can be quoted for future reference. Just like how I quoted you on your tragic departure from MLW. Or is the truth that I was right? The truth will set you free!!!!

Ok..gotta run. Family time. Make sure you don't work too hard on looking for this original quote. I would love to see it though. Perhaps it may explain why you're so off track here.

I thought you worked that out with your therapist. Damn it. You're still hurting aren't you?

quote my original post and show me.

Still won't answer my question hey.....yawn...this is getting boring.

Ok...last time. Now pay attention. SAME RIVERS, SAME LOCATIONS for both comparison.

Yep...still wrong waldingo. Keep trying. Your original claim just sucks...plain and simple.

Hey....if you're going to quote what I said...then actually do it. Look below at my real quote an I too know how to increase font, color and size....however I don't think it will help your confusion as you are beyond help. I used a projected number to show you that you ridiculous claims were WAY off. The actual numbers are 5%. Chew on that.

Ah....here we go... http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/06/20130626-070852.html Let me guess. The Sun news is right wing and has a Consevative, right wing view on flooding?

Don't be afraid of Science. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You won't even accept hard, concrete numbers about river discharge or about comparing past floods and you want to lecture on science be a friend? Doesn't surprise me that you don't know what a friend is. Again...you can not pick and choose when you want to use science and when you don't it just doesn't work that way. What is your science background anyway? I mean seriously....they teach you in grade school abut correlation. How can you NOT see that flood is marginally worse than the worst flood in RECORDED history. Yes...key word being recorded. Prior to 1900s they weren't exactly monitoring this stuff. Yet...you want to take this marginal and NORMAL flood and now extrapolate the cause to global warming. When this flood massively increases in size then we can talk global warming. When the frequency of these massive floods increases then we can talk global warming. Until then....its just plain ol' boring nature causing it. The stats prove it....so you have to suck it up and deal with it and stop being such an alarmist.

It is very clear to me that you accept the fact that you are wrong and are being so daft about attempting to derail this thread. I can use Bragg Creek, I can use Sarcee, Glenmore, or ANY POINT in between and their peak discharge will vary around 5%. A little lesson on science here waldingo...its objective. You can't pick and choose the points you like and don't like just to serve your purpose. I gave you the hard, cold numbers on this DIRECTLY from Environment Canada and you are still denying it? You are messed up.....seriously. You expect people to listen and accept the graphs, charts and obscure data that you present however something as simple as this evades you? Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong again. Do you want me to say it one more time? Wrong. I used a projection which was given by Alberta Environment. I clearly said it was a projection and the actual numbers would be lower. When the actual numbers came in we saw that the numbers were lower...just like I said. Of course...you conveniently forget the fact that I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE my chosen point to be lower. This proves that the flood is not as abnormal as your fear mongering makes it. How many times do you need to derail the thread to avoid facing the fact that you are complely uneducated on this one? Now you are just spewing crap. I used the historical FACTS from the Alberta (http://alberta.ca/estimated-peak-river-flows.cfm). On this page it clearly shows the historical peak flows FOR EACH RIVER which I used. You want it again? Sure...why not..... Bow - 1520 (1932) versus 1680 (2013). Actual numbers...same river...same point. Wait.....????? YOU said 2013 was DOUBLE the worst flood ever? LOL. Come on...get it together already. Elbow - 338 (2005) versus 692 (2013). Acutal numbers....same river....same point. Wait.....??? YOU said 2013 was FOUR TIMES the 2005 flood. I could also compare the 692 in 2013 to the 836 in 1932 showing it doesn't even surpass that event...but you don't have the mental capabilities to understand it. Again...I have answered you three times on this....Why on earth would I enter into a discussion about PART B of the conversation when it is abundantly clear that you can't comprehend PART A? Admit that this flood is marginally worse (and NOT DOUBLE) than the worst flood in history and I will gladly answer your self guided questions.

And the same jet stream did this in 1932 when the last 100 year flood happend. Was global warming happening then? Was the Artic suffering then? What was the CO2 levels back then?

No. Every province in Canada would do the same and has done the same.

The flood is MARGINALLY worse than the 1932 flood which places it in the category of NORMAL. Are you serious? Jet stream, Arctic....I'm waiting for you to start blaming the oil sands for this too. Perhaps it was all those windmills in Southern Alberta. YES!!!! That's is where we should be looking! Damn those green energy devices of death!

How do I say this....you are like a train wreck constantly happening. You can't help but watch! A fan though? I'm as much of a fan for you as I am of train wrecks....this only good thing is that its usually you taking the beating.

One of the largest problems is that Albertans from all across the province wanted to help. The volunteers couldn't keep up with the request to help and have since turned people away. I personally went down to help family I have in Canmore and was turned away by the RCMP. I don't think the will to help their neighbor is an Alberta thing though. Many provinces have shown this through past trials and with situation in the US.

I am honestly gettting dumber just listenting to you. How do you find the way out of your parent's house in the morning? I know you don't know how to do math or read but now your memory is failing too? Oh boy. Let's try this one more time and I will dumb it down waldo-size to make this as easy as possible. You started your attack by saying: So using the numbers from the top 10 for the Bow in Calgary which you don't have to take my numbers on face value....you can find them at Environment Canada (so i guess your arguements about my so called study fly out the window but don't let me stop you from pouting about this), lets extrapolate here: 2005 flood - 791 cms X 4 would mean the flowrate in 2013 would be 3164 cms 2nd and 3rd worst (1929/1915) - 1320 and 1130 cms X 3 would mean the flowrate in 2013 would be 3960 and 3360 (now that is a 17% difference...so which one is it??) Worst flood (1932) - 1520 cms x 2 would mean the flowrate in 2013 would be 3040 cms. So your ENTIRE PREMISE was saying that the flowrate in the Bow would be around 3,000 cms when the highest point at any reading was 1700cms. Now....that would be a percentage difference of 55%. Seriously??? Your claim is off by 55%????? I tried so hard to help you (because Lord knows you need it so desparately) to make the 55% come lower by using teh Alberta Environment projected number of 1740 for Bow River but of course you jumped on the Elbow River Bragg Creek trying your best to derail this thread as you typically do (especially when you've just been shown the door on the conversation!) You have tried numerous times to hang me on the percent difference between the PROJECTED number that was provided by Alberta Environment at Bragg Creek which was 959 cms versus the actual number provided by the readings which you stated was 692 cms at Sarcee. Do I really need to explain the difference between a projection and acutal. Ok. I will: Projected - Estimate or forecast (something) on the basis of present trends Acutal - Existing in fact; typically as contrasted with what was intended, expected, or believed (or shall we say projected) So you are trying to chastize me that Alberta Environment's PROJECTED NUMBER was 35% higher than the ACUTAL number at Sarcee. Of course if you truly wanted to compare you need to go apples to apples you would compare Sarcee 2013 to Sarcee 1932....oh what? Sacree didn't start collecting data until 1979 so good luck with that one!! Oh but you also want to hang your hat on the power being out at Bragg Creek. How convenient? So looking for similar numbers I went with Sarcee knowing it wouldn't be much different than Bragg. And for some reason you don't want to accept data presented by Environemntal Science students at the University of Calgary PROVING that River Discharge does not increase significantly moving downstream. You apparently don't believe the sky is blue either OR apparently know your ass from a hole in the ground. So...let me show you based on historical and real time numbers. Real time - looking at Alberta Environment today it shows the peak flow at Bragg, Sarcee and Glenmore as being 532, 543, and 555 respectively. Why that is at most a difference of 4%. Are you freaking serious? 4%? Statisitically speaking...that is nothing! Historical - looking at the 2005 flood (which is the same shown by our friends at the University of Calgary however this time I will use the numbers directly from Environment Canada), it shows at their peak in 2005 that Bragg, Sarcee and Glenmore were 308, 338, and 331. 6%. Hmmm....not much difference there. So let's keep track of this....University of Calgary says discharge doesn't incresase significantly AND Environment Canada's numbers show it doesn't increase significantly. Hmmm....but the dillusional waldo disagrees. Seriously....LMFAO! All this Bragg Creek conversation aside....you can't derail the original point that this 2013 flood was at best marginally worse than the 1932 flood which tells anyone with a brain that its NORMAL. But...lets play this out a bit more. Your data point for Sarcee was higher as it was a few days back and it was 692 cms. Oh but wait...you said the 2013 flood was 4 x worse than 2005. However, simple math would tell you that 692 divided by 338 is 2.04 which of course is much closer to 2x than 4x. Wrong again....but you must be used to that by now? You really don't have a clue do you? I honestly feel sorry for you as you take so much pride in coming to this site since its the only real interaction you have with people. However, you clearly don't know how to interact. Your condescending, smug remarks makes it impossible to converse with you. But...that's not something I need to worry about. Afer all you have to deal with yourself all the time. I can pick and choose when I want to humilate you.

Nice try Waldo! You pouted, left and skulked back into the mix. Do you need a cookie to feel better?

Read my previous post...I clearly said it had nothing to do with global warming. Plain and simple! Hard time with math and reading. Must be tough at your basement cubicle?

You really are the slowest person I know. The 969 number was from the Alberta Environment website for projected values which I gave to you. I even said the actual numbers were going to be lower but I allowed that number to be used to show you how it compared to the worst flood in 1932. Double????? Not even close with the inflated projected number. I can't even consider it a fail...it's a colossal embarrassment!!!!

I know. It was only a hope but unforuntely not reality.

Didn't have to look very long. Much like the rest of the people on the forum, I marked it as the day this forum improved 10 fold. It was sweet not to have you on this post. Its VERY tiresome trying to educate you on how to do math. Seriously....worst flood ever was 1500 cms. You say this one is double whcih would mean 3000 cms. You are the opposite of easy...that is for sure.

I need to cool my jets? Make me. You have the choice to ignore me....go ahead and do so. Its either a bold face lie or you were wrong. You won't admit that you were wrong so I go back to point 1.

No stats or figures to back it up....how defeatist. Man....you really should try something else with your spare time.