Accountability Now

I agree. I'm not sure that I would want him as our starting goalie but in spite of the issues he went through in Vancouver and being on the block all of last year and then his relegation to backup for the Olympics, I felt that he was a classy, classy person. Definitely a guy I would want on my team but maybe not as the starter.

Good you acknowledge that I had cited it. You also then acknowledge that you lied about me not citing it. Good job.

I cant remember if this was from the article or from something else I read but if the effect of the PDO can be negated or enhanced by the ENSO. As such you can't just look at one or the other and have an linear effect all the time. The other reality is that it takes many years after the phases happen to account for what phase its in. Ultimately the swing in minimum temperatures is strongly affected by both as per the article.

Apparently us skeptics are still a few steps higher on the intellectual scale than the alarmists though. And no amount of cycles will fix that.

Your honesty has been brought into question on this thread and now you choose to address that by issuing yet another lie? The whole chain that started this topic of 'theoretical' came from my post 186 as below: You remember....the post that you didn't want to touch!!! Not just this time but also the last time when I posted the information in your BS thread about Harper stifling innovation (you know the one where you lied about using GDP by PPP for your equation.....do you ever tell the truth?). I introduced this information in post 64: Quote When I called you out for your lack of citation or backup for your weak pine beetle example I responded with this actual quote (and not the deceptive crop job that you pulled above): Your only argument at this point was that I should have posted this in an appropriate thread....because a thread about the global warming consnesus wasn't the right place to talk about extreme weather from global warming but its surely the right place to discuss a pine beetle which you made no reference or citation as to how it is even affected by global warming. Hypocrisy? Dishonesty? Most likely both. I then addressed my source when you yet again refused to acknowledge the points in post 217. Ironcially immediately after my post 217 is your request for me to back up my claim about the theoretical in your post 218. So lets recap: I provided the points about extreme weather and how there is no proof in actuality that global warming is causing it but yet the IPCC models still claim that theoretically this will happen with future warming.....and that is not back up of my theoretical claim? You even acknowledged my source below: Are you now saying that I didn't provide a link or a source for the informaiton I provdied? Are you saying that you are completely unaware of the SREX report? Of course you're not because you provided that same report to start off your whole blabbering thread about Increasing Weather Extremes. So it can't be ignorance of my citations, rather it is once again dishonesty. I have engaged you a number of times on MLW on various topics with each time me showing you the door. I enjoyed those conversations because despite your constant defection I never thought you'd lie. Your first lie came as of late with your erroneous usage of GDP using PPP. Your second one came with saying your citation for the pine beetles was there all along. And now this most recent lie of you saying that I never posted by links or backup for my claim on it being mostly theoretical. How many times do you need to be dishonest before it is well know that you are a dishonest member of this forum. For me....this is all I need. I will not engage you in future topics. Any posts in my direction will be responded with a reminder of your dishonesty.

Then call him on it. An error???? ROTFL!!! Four very obvious and direct requests were made to waldo requesting him to back up his quote. But you think it was an error when I blantently posted in caps that he needs to back up his post on the third or fourth attempt? Was it an error when he refused to answer KeepitSimple? Come on Michael.....don't play stupid...its not like you. I did....three times after the intitial request. Do you know who you are talking about here? And you wonder why people have him on ignore! WWWTP is that member who was posting all sorts of nonsense stuff about global warming which made you quite upset. In turn you chastized the right wing members of the board for not calling him out assuming that he was right wing too. He wasn't but you certainly showed your left wing agenda there.

Nope...no nerve at all. I simply let you know that I won't be engaging you because of your dishonest approach. You consistantly deflect from direct questions which numerous MLW members have called you on but yet you persist. If you continue to respond to my posts I will respond in turn letting you know that I don't engage dishonest members.

Michael... is it or is it not forum policy to provide a citation after it has been requested to back up statements that you make? Do you consider it honest to refuse that claim four seperate times only to then on the fifth time claim that the reference was there all along and all I had to do was Google it? I certainly don't and i know other members in the past have been called out for not backing up their quotes. To add to this, other members on this forum ignore waldo because he consistently deflects from questions directly asked of him. In this particular thread KeepitSimple has asked waldo numerous times to answer the question in the OP and he won't. And you consider this honest? If a person is making a dishonest arguement then that by nature means that he's dishonest. Its not name calling its what it is. If I made racist comments then you would call me a rasict. You yourself said that you need to have some intellectual buy in to have a conversation. I refuse to engage waldo because I don't buy into his dishonest tactics. I have let him know this everytime that he tries to engage and I have let him know why. I'm not surprised by you missing out on KeepitSimple's repeated requests, or TImG's comments as I know where your true left wing allegiances lie especially after your big left wing rant against WWWTP.

That specific study and that specific area were provided to me from an honest MLW member looking for honest discussion. In turn I responded to his supplied requests within the realm of that study and chose not to deflect to multiple non-applicable items which is something that a dishonest poster like yourself would do. With that being said, if you have an issue with the study that was used or the information provided in the study then I suggest you take it up with MLW member 'The_Squid" as it was his request that we look at that area using that data. In the mean time....run along little waldo.

For the specific area that Squid is talking about (Cariboo-Chicolton....using Quesnel as the data point) I see that the temperautre dipped down 21 times below -40C from 1893 to 1991. Nothing since 1991. Again...this is for that specific area that Squid is talking about. Looking at other areas in BC, they never reached -40C and therefore this is nothing new to them and perhaps would explain why their pine population is not as high as further north. Again...the question comes up is Global Warming causing this issue to happen? As indicated its a two fold mechanism: 1. The large increase in pine hosts in the last 100 years has made this epidemic possible 2. Milder winter temperatures have not reduced/eliminated the pine beetle in its normal natural method. I don't think #1 is up for debate as a number of sources cite the over matureness of the pine which is exactly what pine beetles like. I have conceded that the temperatures in that area have not seen drastic cold since the late 90s however I still don't believe this is because of global warming. After reading Squid's paper I am more assured of this fact as it states in the summary: As described in the paper, these natural cycles seem to be the major force on temperature especially in that region and largely explain the milder winters. It has been expressed that we are dipped down into a PDO cold phase in the late 90s but its too early to tell if its going to last. Additionally, its the effects of the PDO can be negated or enhanced by a simultaneous ENSO phase. All in all, this area is being largely affected by climate variability that is largely natural in cause. As you suggested, don't confuse annual temperatures with other measures. You were dead on. The PDO/ENSO cycles need to be considered.

One other thing to add....I've been trying look at area outside the one you cited to see if there were any variations. As such I looked into Alberta and found a link on the provincial website. I found this quote interesting "Why are the mountain pine beetle infestations becoming more extensive? Modern fire suppression has resulted in large areas of pine forests with over-mature trees, which are more susceptible to beetle attack. In the past, most of Alberta has been outside the mountain pine beetle's normal range of distribution due to the harsh winter conditions. However, with the recent milder winters, these beetles have been more successful in parts of Alberta." It still comments on the milder weather being a factor but again the main point is how fire suppression in the past has caused for over mature pine which is highly succeptable to the pine beetle. http://mpb.alberta.ca/FAQs/GeneralQuestions.aspx

Good article so far. Haven't finished reading it so far. Definitely #2 goes out the window as a quick view of temps in that are show they used to get -40c weather but haven't since 1991. With that being said, it doesn't negate my point on their being a lot more pine compared to the past. Even you agreed that it doesn't affect them much in the lower mainland because they don't have as much pine there.

How about the fact that I asked waldo to present a link to back up his quote four times and he wouldn't? Or how about the fact that I presented a number of other studies that show the consensus ranges around 82-98% Or how about the fact that this thread was about 97% of the scientists yet waldo decided to rely solely on his study regarding the consensus of abstracts....not scientists. And of course my favorite....how about the facts that I bring up from the IPCC regarding their low confidence in extreme weather events and waldo's constant deflection from this....with his recent rebuttal being the prime example. Instead of addressing the IPCC statements he submitted a claim about pine beetles...again a claim that he refused to back up after being asked four times. With that being said...don't let my facts get in the way if your issues!!

Choosing to not engage a dishonest member. Again...you don't link anything of where you got your facts or your ability to back them up. Of course, me asking 4-5 times for them won't do anything.

You can choose to ignore my comments as well.

Sorry...I don't deal with dishonest posters. Please keep your comments to yourself or to other posters who will actually engage your dishonest approach.

Actually more accurate figures were presented through Michael Hardner's wikipedia link showing a number of other studies that ranged from 82%-97%. I'm willing to accept that range but other posters are not. As for the waldo's study, I also pointed out how a certain percentage of the papers who were undecided were left out of the equation. If you add those numbers back in then even this study is back down to 82%. No problem in accepting a high number but to back 97% as the end all and be all is just ridiculous.

I've barely heard about the pine beetle before another MLW poster decided that the increased numbers was an example of an actual (versus theoretical) effect of global warming. I couldn't care to know anything more than what I've already posted here which is: 1. The recent outbreak is attributed to the large increase in pine population versus the last outbreak 2. The 1-2 degrees that global warming has attributed to the cause doesn't seem to matter in killing off these guys as the extremes in most of these areas (record lows) are barely around that -35 range which is needed. How would one expect to get -35 for a series of days on an annual basis? This points to the large pine increase as being the dominant factor. Its pretty clear that you don't really care either way but to use this as your landmark 'actual' example is fairly weak.

Like you, I'm not a beetle biologist or a forestry scientist either. As I stated I don't really care about the beetle, so when you present a link for basic facts about beetles I assumed it had nothing to do with temperatures that kill them. Sorry. Should have read it. With that said, -35 consistantly....how many places in BC get -35 consistently....other than the north parts? I'm just saying that the whole pine beetle thing is a bit of a stretch to say its all on global warming.

Report me. Let the mods decide. I really don't care.

Report me then. I don't care. Your dishonesty should be showcased.

I have stated my position in conversation with honest MLW members. I choose not to engage dishonest members like yourself.

-40 weather or just cold weather? Bonam stated that it doesn't need to be -40C as you don't need to kill them all. Even if its -35 then you will be in tough in some parts of BC as their record lows for all time are around -36/-37. Unlike other posters on this site, I am willing to accept that certain things can be a person's opinion and not berate them for it. So I have no problems discussing opinions and knowing that our ultimate debate doesn't settle anything. Having said that, I think its fair to say that in situations like this its not fair to just say climate change is at the root of this, especially human induced climate change.

I asked you four times to provide a link or some sort of back up as your quote had no reference whatsoever. Here are my requests: After you realized that I had given up and gone on to an honest conversation, you replied with this: You clearly state that you quoted from nrcan but neither your original post nor your responses to my post above states this. You finally stated where you got this informaton and claimed that it was understood all along that it came from nrcan. You are without a doubt the most dishonest member on this forum.

Ok. So at what temperature does that occur? And would it occur if forest management practices had been better? As stated by the study, "during the latter half of the previous century, there was more than three times the amount of mature pine in western Canada at the start of the current outbreak than 100 years earlier "