Accountability Now

The third choice? Maybe on his first campaign when he was up against the incumbent Bill Smith and a favorite in Robert Noce. But he won by significant margins in his next two elections with 66% and 55% of the popular vote. Perhaps your memory is self guided? Of course I love when people try to associate party politics at the mayoral level. Keep in mind that Ralph Klein was considered 'liberal' when he was the mayor of Calgary. We all know how that turned out.

I said I wasn't sure about Mandel only because he's not currently an MLA so I do to know if they could even do that without some sort of by-election first. I agree that he would do a good job. You are right about the Calgary emphasis. I also heard Nenshi's name thrown in the mix. Maybe that would be more likely based on the Calgary vote.

So where do you find any context referring to gender in Guyser's original statement? In this statement I find it lining up with exactly how he defined it. (ie trying very hard or too hard to be appealing)

All you need to do is use the forum search feature and type in 'cutesy". Its been used a number of times and not once (that I could see) has it been used in a gender specific manner.

It looks like Dave Hancock is taking over on the interim but he says he doesn't want it for th long haul. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/dave-hancock-named-alberta-s-interim-premier-1.1737548 There was some talk on the radio this morning about former Edmonton mayor Stephen Mandel possibly stepping in. Not sure about that one.

Actually a number of people from various provinces have 'talked' about leaving Canada but that doesn't mean they are remotely close to doing it. Squid already posted about BCs intent on joining Cascadia. This wiki link has others. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessionist_movements_of_Canada Heck...I even found one for Ontario http://www.katewerk.com/ontario.html

Wow....I can't believe the next words out of my mouth....I actually agree with waldo. I would like to see the truth of what will actually happen if Quebec decides to split. I have heard some comments about not all of Quebec could split (ie the native territories) and even of the areas that do split, there are some that might split from the New Quebec to stay in Canada. If the ROC via the Federal Government actually started to lay down some expectations then perhaps some of the pawns involved would back off and the idea of a referendum wouldn't be so popular. Or perhaps it would spark the fire....don't know.

Yup....nothing from waldo. Pure nothingness to accompany no actual claims....just dishonesty and deflection. Well done....well done.

Are you still nattering on about that? Perhaps you should spend more time trying to figure out the sample sizes of the particular study at hand rather than worrying about this. Or perhaps you should spend more time working on your dishonest approach. You asked me to show how the natural cycles tie into the warming as such I provided you a study from Roy Spencer on the PDO feedback. Incapable of looking at the actual science behind it you chose to pass it off as blog science. Yet here the same author now presents another study on natural cycles and their feedback on warming http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/our-new-paper-el-nino-warming-reduces-climate-sensitivity-to-1-3-deg-c/. Sorry to break your heart but this one is published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science. The study itself is behind a paywall however he has a description of it on his site. Just as interesting on his site is the following statement: And we wonder why the abstracts favor the 97%.....hmmm.

To be claimed under Nafta they need to have 50-60% regional content. Is it safe to assume that Hyundai is using that much regional content? Content is based on net cost or in transaction value....I'm assuming the net cost method might work here.

Not a single claim made. You certainly are one slippery individual. Great work on your award!

More deflection.

I have clearly outlined your blunder. Easy enough for even you to see. I gave you an opportunity to redeem yourself by giving you the option to admit that you were confused by the similar 231 versus 232 numbers yet you persist. Your continued denial exceeds the possibility of confusion and is now clearly exemplifies your continued dishonesty. You are in fact MLWs most dishonest poster. I don't think you'll have much competition for that award the way you're going. Educate yourself on the consensus and on having an honest conversation

Do you believe the number is 97%? Yes or no?

Perhaps by dividing the number of total participant publishing in climate science (n=231) by the total sample size (n=1821) which equals 13%. I should have known that division might evade you. I also know that you still haven't figured out the 231 number anyway. I guess you don't need to educate yourself when you can rely on utter dishonesty.

Here it is again: The n number for 78% is not 232. I've spoken to it and even marked up the drawing for you. It's not! As I thought...your deflection indicates your dishonesty.....again!

I've been very clear that the 97% consensus is ridiculous. Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists is accurate. Yes or no?

As you stated in your post....the n number with the 78% is 232. It is not....its 124. Are you clear on that yet? The first two isolated cateogories (Climate Science and Atmospheric Science) make up the majority (79%). As such they focused on those two isolated categories. The third group titled Sample Total is....well you guessed it....the total of all groups. This break down was provided in the preliminary results. You will note the sample size of 1796 is smaller than 1821 so I'm guessing that more results came in after the preliminaries. The percentages won't change that much. So.....again....are you confused....or dishonest? Its a very simple question.

As always...waldo never actually claims anything. He pushes studies that he certainly backs which coincidentally claim the 97% although he never actually claims it himeslf. Very courageous that way. He was asked a dozen times to directly answer the OP question but never did. Other non-skeptics like eyeball were much more reasonable in their approach.

Yes...it was a while back. Here it is again. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

No....232 is the total number of Climate Scientists in the study which is shown by adding up all three columns (124+82+26=232). The first column where n=124 is where we see the 78%. In the other group of Meteorologists we see n= 1203 for the whole group but ony 61 for those in that group that publish mostly climate related. When you combine all groups....not just Climate Scientists and Meteorolgists, you get a total sample size of n=1821 of which 231 publish mostly on climate. Still confused or just further dishonesty?

No...here is exactly what I said: That category being those who beleive that global warming is mostly human caused (as indicated in the sentence that you cropped avoided) I then said: So if you look at THAT category.....78% is the highest number when you are looking at Climate Scientist studying mostly climate. If you look at just those in the Meterology and Atmospheric Science field...specifically those who deal mostly in climate, the number is 61%. If you look at both fields for those who mostly study climate then the number is 73%. Like I said, the numbers are all there. You are either confused or being dishonest. Which one is it? I will suspect its the latter of the two if I just get deflection.

Nope...I'm good. Still going after that 97% number hey.....poor waldo. Tell a few more lies...maybe you'll get there.

waldo...as always...you continue your dishonest ways which is why I won't engage you. The numbers are clearly laid out in the table.....if you choose to misrepresent the numbers yet again then so be it. Just don't be surpised when you are lableled as being dishonest. Now...a free insight on what the word consnensus is defined as: con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Show Spelled [kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA noun, plural con·sen·sus·es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony. I guess the dictionary is wrong? Lol.

Yes you're right Simple. I think all rational people involved realize that 97% is just ridiculous. Even above our resident alarmist is trying to show a discrepancy between 78% and 73% when those numbers are taken right from the table and speak to different categories. Leave it up to him to either confuse the issue or deliberately mislead by taking things out of context. The fact that people can use/confuse various categories to describe what they want lead us into this mess in the first place. Of course, this same person likes to throw out stats on the percentages involved yet he seems to forget that his very own study had 66% of the papers reflecting no position. But of course.....lets just brush those aside so that we can meet the self serving number of 97%. The word consensus means majority amonst the group. So in any study or report I've seen, there is a consnesus that humans are causing global warming. However, that is not the issue at hand. Is that consensus 97%. No....its not. Is it at 52% like the AMS study could suggest. No...its not. I believe its somewhere inbetween but again...we don't really know until the undecided become decided. But anyone claiming 97% is ridiculous.