Accountability Now

Like the fact that waldo lied about his citation?

I I am aware that a lack of cold temperatures have played a part. However, is the recent warming the only cause of this? No...according to Carroll it requires both a large amount of pine and warmer temps to casue an epidemic. So how much can be blamed on warming and how much on forest managemnt practices.....I don't know. However if you want to look at just the warming then I would have to question the ability to kill these in the first place. Your study states that it requires minus 40C for 100% mortality. Looking at a few cities in the interior BC we can see that the record cold temperatures for places such as Williams Lake is only -42C. This the record cold temperature...not expected. Additionally, I don't know if the under bark temperture matches the air temperture of if it is a little warmer. If so, then you would need all of that -42 record temp to kill these things in Williams Lake. You go further north and PG has a record cold temp of -50C....so that is probably doable. However, you go south to Kamloops and Kelowna and you have record cold temps of -37 and -36 respectively. These extreme tempertures wouldn't of have the ability to kill of these beetles. So how much can be put back on the warming?

Michael....have a look a post 193 which waldo claims he provides the photo. Also look at his exact quote above and see where or if he states nrcan or Natural Resources Canada. The fact is that he did not say anything about nrcan until post 239 when asked repeatedly to supply a link for which he would not. And instead of simply supplying the link he lied and said that he had supplied it all along. Absolute dishonest conversation. Michael...a little while back you pleaded to the right wing members of this forum to call out a suspected right wing member (WWWTP) even though he is in fact left wing. You stated that you repeatedly call out members on the left when they require it. Don't you think this case requires it?

How long does it take to post a link to back up your claim? Apparently a lot longer?

No accusations Michael just truth on my end. waldo was asked to provide a link to back up his claim. He did not and then stated that he had. He's now saying that I needed to Google the quote to find it. Only bold face lies on his end.

Not my job to back up your claims. Don't worry...I won't ask you to back it up anymore as I know you can't. I'll continue the conversation with the honest members in this forum. I trust the moderators of this thread don't deal too harshly with your bold face lie about your fake citation. Don't worry....I won't report you.

Funny...you spend all that time with your Google reenactment but you can't supply one link for the pine beetle. Wow. PS...I'm still not a Governor.

Here is your EXACT QUOTE!!!!! Tell me where in here you you say ANYTHING about Natrual Resources Canada. ANYTHING????? Another bold face lie from the most dishonest member on this forum. Like i said....run along waldo. Quote

I'm not a Governor.

Run along waldo....the adults are talking now. Squid actually provided a link....something that evades you.

Nice back-pedal!

You aren't the only one! He has a repeated pattern of this where most people just put him on ignore.

When these scientists can accurately showcase what is going to happen then the governments should listen. Look at the plateau and their inability to predict that. Look at all the theoretical extreme weather that they say is going to happen in theory but can't back it up in actuality. The problem is that government can't just go out on a limb and make drastic changes without proof that the results with be catastrophic. So far...they aren't. '

PROVIODE YOUR BACK UP!!! How difficult is it to understand??????

You called me Governor. I called you court jester. That is your call...not mine.

Thanks Squid. I appreciate your willingness for HONEST conversation. I do note that the article you posted is a 2004 paper from Allan Carroll. Here is an updated 2010 abstract discussing the same things but adding a little more information on the cause. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr-nrs-p-75papers/01carroll-p-75.pdf Is it not fair to say that forest mangement and logging tehcniques may have been the main cause of this?

As per my previous post So not only did you derail this thread by talking NOTHING about AGW but you now won't provide the link. Yikes

Yes...I see that you keep a binder to keep track of everyone's posts. You do with with Simple and other MLW member. Personally I find it creepy but hey...whatever floats your boat.

The IPCC is not an all knowing group...that is why.....even though you alarmists seem to think so. As such, you can do one of two things with the IPCC tidbits that I gave you. Choose to accept them because you follow the IPCC to a tee.....or admit that you actually disagree with them. I await your move court jester. It is a little nugget. One that you ran from before and one that you are running from now. In the previous attempt to ask you to answer it I provided you with the SREX report outlining this so as per usual your cliams on not putting forward an actual post with cited quotes is COMPETE BS. Somehow you feel that a thread on the consensus is not the right place to discuss the IPCC's view on extreme weather however you have no problems throwing down the pine beetle. Again....does your hypocrisy have no end. Your move court jester.

I asked you for a link and a reference to back up your claim. I trust the moderators of this forum thread will acknowledge your dishonest conversation style.

Back-pedal??? I completely laid out my assessment of you who are. Where is the back-pedal? Like I said, your consistant snarky and condescending comments and overall disgruntled attitude certainly suggest that you have some sort of vendetta to play out. You seem to direct that vendetta at the research funding, global warming, and Harper which suggests that something to affect you personally. If you want to talk about you living in your parents basement then go for it. This is your chance to let it all out man! He can't hurt you anymore!!!

As always.....your post says NOTHING as to how this is related to AGW. NOTHING!!! You don't even provide a link either. Scared of something? More notably....I see you didn't come close to touching my notes from the IPCC about the low confidence in extreme weather events. This one really bothers you especially after you blabbed on in a thread that you created called Increasing weather extremes. That one really hurt....didn't it!!

Sure...it is legitimate....just like any other job that a person chooses to do. I used that example as it is often an easier job to get and is often filled by teenagers working their way up or people in transitional phases of their lives. I made the assessment that you are currently working there after your job at some government research facility got eliminated due to reduced funding from the Harper government. It certainly would explain your condescending and hate filed comments toward anything Harper or Harper related which apparently includes oil. As I stated....this was just my opinion based on your previous posts. What is a guy to do but make some assumptions as you won't clearly answer such questions such as 'what political party you support' or 'do you believe the consensus of scientists is at 97%'?

You realize that even the IPCC attributes low confidence that the actual events like hurricanes and tornadoes are changing. Even with droughts they say medium confidence that some areas are increasing but then go on to say other areas are decreasing. At this point it's mostly theoretical.

[quote name="Keepitsimple" post="949107" timestamp="1393779354" If Waldo can let us know where he actually stands on the thread question, perhaps the sniping can be a bit more focused. You mean instead of his constant deflection?? Good luck with that!!!