Accountability Now

You see waldo...here is your problem once again. This is a written forum and you can't BS this stuff as its very easy to go back and show exactly what was said and not said. You posted the table that I put up but you CONVENIENTLY left out what I said IMMEDIATELY AFTER. Here....I reposted it for you to read it and weep. Please focus on the red bold writing. So what was that again about a do over? I would have presented this chart earlier but I was very certain that it would have made your head spin and you wouldn't keep up. I see that delaying the info didn't help anyway.

Still waiting. I'm particularily interested in seeing the CPC ridings involved.

You didn't know that was their mantra? Just look at good ol' Neil. Craps on the oil sands development and then recants by saying actually....the devlopment is ok as long as they honor the treaties...ie get money. They are pulling oil out of the ground. There are spills when this happens. Or in the Samson case, the pipeline could leak JUST as easily as the Northern Gateway but only one of them is screwing up the environment? In any case, if the natives are paid, then there is no environmental issue. Perhaps....but the same can be said about the economic return. They are getting millions of dollars from these smaller scale projects and billions of dollars from the oil sands. 1.8 billion to be exact. You keep forgetting, the natives already approve the oil sands. They already accept the environmental degredation that is so called happening. I just think its hypocrtical and weak that they pretend to care about the environment when in every case....that environment has a price tag.

You would have no idea about national centric as I doubt you have ever made it out of this country. But with that being said, after all your ramblings, I think I have you figured out. I assume you are a university grad from some science program that took the safe and easy route to working as a lab rat within one of your coveted government institutions. When the funding to those government institutions got transferred to private industry or higher education, they needed to make cuts. You lost your job and are now working shift work at the local grocery store all the while preaching of your extreme weather tales to your teenage coworkers. I can see it now....is that why you hate Harper so much? Again...this is just my take. I have no idea of who you really are or aren't since you can't find the courage to stand behind anything. Perhaps you actually work for an oil company? Hmmm. Perhaps you are a card carrying CPC member that is out on forums purposely looking like a baffoon as a form of reverse psychology. Maybe. This might actually be it.

You mean the thread that you personally created called Increasing weather/climate extremes? The one where you carried on purpoting false statements about such increases in extreme weather due to climate change. That one? Oh the embarrassment you must feel right now. I have 'low-confidence' in anything you say anymore. LOL!!!

I didn't touch your post because it didn't matter. The total amount of GERD funding increased. So if the funding was cut from here it was added where it was needed. Just because the government isn't doing that research doesn't mean its not getting done. In fact, those funds probably got transferred to higher education or private facilities where the efficiencies are better. Of course looking at your brillinat chart that you had to have constructed, I see that you have 2010-2011 in there twice. Nice work McFly. And even more to the point....I really appreciate how you whine and complain about keeping with the milestones of 2006, 2008 and 2010 but then present a change from 2007-2014. Well done waldo. Your hypocrisy continues. As for the decrease in the performing section....all that means is they reduced the amount of actual government workers PERFORMING the work. They shifted that funding to the private sector where it would be done more efficiently. I have zero problems with that. Of course you forgot to highlight the most important part.....Harper Conservative funding up for 2008-2012!!! But I do like your note: "note: 2013 is a projection data figure based on data supplied by... by... you!") I didn't realize that people studdered when the wrote too. I really thought it was a speech issue. Is that why you say "by the by"? Perhaps you should seek some help for that. Now more importantly, the 2013 data again is a PROJECTION. Do you ever live life in REALITY or do you have to rely on projections to get you by. Again....come see me in 2014 when the State of the Nation comes out again.....until then keep your projections to yourself.

The examples you sought out, that you alone presented were GERD examples!!!! Lol. I read the post again....and again. You first tried to claim that GDP-PPP should be used. WRONG! You scurried back to saying that you also provided GDP-USD and that was... WRONG! You then tried to show examples using GERD to show that PPP can be used but I of course showed its NOT used in the GERD intensity formula which we are using. SO....WRONG AGAIN!! Just fess up already. It will make is so much easier on yourself.

Of course, why do you focus only on the 2008-2011 data and don't touch the 2008-2010 data? Are you scared of the 2008-2010 data as well? The 2008-2011 data still shows some correlation but not as strong as 2008-2010....which I stated when presenting the data to 2008-2011. I went with the weaker correlation just to prove the point that it still applies. You want the stronger correlation? Here's the 2008-2010 numbers. EVERY country that showed a significant increase in GDP yielded at negative GERD change with the exception of Belgium. One exception is Belgium....which i have stated for the third time now. Every country that showed minimal growth in GDP (less than 1%) OR negative growth in GDP showed postive GERD ratios. I even added in Slovenia and Estonia as those are the two that "leap frogged" over Canada since 2010. You asked why did I pick that group of countries. If you would have read (which in know you struggle with), you would have seen where I stated that I chose those countries as they were the ones that had standings in front of Canada and behind Canada. Since this whole report is based on trying to improve our place in the Innovative world, it only makes sense to compare to those around us. Also....as stated above...showing this area allows us to see that a changing GDP allowed Slovenia and Estonia to leap frog us from 2010. Any reason why I didn't include China? When you look at all the other countries is there something that makes China different from the start? Oh I don't know....maybe all the other countries are not communist. Do ya think that may have an effect on their funding styles?

Did you read the article? He's not exactly praising Harper.

Just for clarity.... http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/28/john-ivison-the-3-1-billion-conservative-boondoggle-that-never-was/

Accountability Now, on 21 Jan 2014 - 3:05 PM, said: Sure. Keeping with the native mantra that oil development equals screwing over the environment, then all i have to do is show you places on reserves that have no problems with developing those resources therefore 'screwing over the environment'. Onion Lake, Sask - http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1377775603370/1377775783343 (They have their own oil company here) Samson Cree, Alberta - http://www.ammsa.com/publications/alberta-sweetgrass/agreement-signed-between-samson-cree-atco (Can you believe they let the pipeline go right through their land?) Of course, we all remember DeBeers up by Attiwapiskat too. You know....lets make an agreement but then go back on the agreement because its not enough money.

I thought you'd need help with this. Relative size is the size of one country's GDP verus the others in a given year. What they mean is that it doesn't matter that one country has a GDP of trillions and others are in the billions as the GERD formula is a percentage (ie unitless). They are NOT referring to the effects of a changing GDP over a number of years. GDP is the driving force to how much businesses or government fund for R&D. If the GDP climbs steadily then the targets are set for the next year and the funding is appropriate. When the GDP changes from postive to negative, then the targets are moved and the equation is effected. STIC does not take this into consideration. This does not mean the STIC report is not useful however it does need to be taken with some insight which clearly you have no ability to do.

I have clearly shown the government's involvement has not changed in fact its overall funding has increased. A fact that you continue to stumble on. The other fact is that government is around 15% of the total equation and yet you have no issues with laying the blame on Harper. Whoa is me...it must be Harpers fault. Get a grip already. As with most countries, industry leads the way with R&D and Canada is no exception with almost 50% of R&D coming from that sector. Now of course anyone who knows business knows that funding is driven from the five year business plan which is revised on an annual basis. As such when the recession hit in 2009, it only made sense that R&D was cut for 2010 and 2011 and most likely will be until the economy recovers to a point where confidence is back. As for me being a business expert...ya...I'm not too bad. I own and operate a multinational company that has been quite successful in our ten year run. Furthermore, I have personally been involved in the federal governments SR&ED tax credit. I continually have companies and government agencies following up with me about this trying to entice me to do more. So yes....I am quite certain the government is playing its part in R&D. Of course, I also have a environmental degree from the faculty of physics so I guess that puts me a step above the so called sock puppet that you seem to know alot about. I would ask you for your business or education background however I'm sure you'll shy away considering you still won't answer which political party you would support. Any reason for your hesitation waldo? Come on...step up. The chart i supplied had numbers up to 2011. The data supporting that chart had data from 2013. It also had data from the 1990s. Wow...keep it on the tracks. As for the IPCC....you never had the courage to respond to my claim so I never presented it. Have a chew on this.....right from the IPCC themselves. https://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

Yup...and I admitted I was wrong. Its what normal, non-narcissistic people do. Of course, my slip up had ZERO effect on my conclusions. You keep slipping up all over the place and won't for a second admit you're wrong. Must be tough..... Yes...you certainly pushed both! Lol...and both were wrong! You might want to try admitting that.

Two things: 1. Your second chart showing Nominal was all expressed in USD for every year. AGAIN WRONG!!!!!! The GERD Intensity formula is based on GDP of Current Prices in LOCAL CURRENCY. So BOTH your PPP and Current Prices version were WRONG. Is it just me or are you on a roll here with being wrong. 2. PPP can be used and is used when comparing GDPs, GERD, etc but it is NOT used for calculating GERD intensity. So give me all the examples of how PPP is used becasue they don't matter. The only thing that matters in this formula is GDP Current Prices, Local Currency. Wrong again....yeesh. Still ROTFL......

The OECD graph itself compares nations with 2010 data versus 2011 data. If you want....we can remove all the countries that don't have 2011 data and voila....Canada is now in 15th. GREAT! We moved up a spot from 2006! Perhaps you can now see just how ridiculous your 2010 versus 2011 issue is. Now...if you want to persist on the data provided. Fine. Previously I didn't have the Singapore GERD data but with a little help from Google...voila. The following GERD intensities: - 2008 -2.77 - 2010 -2.1 - 2011 - 2.2 This results in a 2008-2010 and 2008-2011 GERD change of -24.2% and -20.6% corresponding to GDP increases of 17.1% and 21.2% Yup....quite significant. So that makes 3 of 4. Australia still doesn't have their 2011 GERD data but I don't need to use that as I have their 2010 GERD which still shows the correlation....even though you do via the the OECD chart! Again...does your hypocrisy have no end? There are two data sets that show the correlation....2008-2010 and 2008-2011. For 2008-2010, we see four countries that have a negative change in GERD (AUS, CAN, LUX and SING) and all four of these countries had an increasing GDP over the same time period. In the 2008-2011 period we see three countries that show the same correlation (CAN, LUX and SING). Of course, you only want to focus on the declining GERD countries for some reason. For the 2008-2010 data set, every country (with the exception of Belgium) that showed a minimal change (around zero) or a declining GDP all showed postive GERD intensities. For the 2008-2011 data set, we see a very similar correlation showing countries that don't experience the GDP change not having a significant GERD change OR countries having a singficant decrease in GDP showing an significant increase in GERD. Two examples that I didn't even have on the list are Estonia and Slovenia who showed significant GERD increases. Estonia went from 1.28 (2008) to 1.62 (2010) to 2.37 (2011) thus yielding a 2008-2010 change of 26.6% Their GDP change over this same period was -11.8%. For 2008-2011, as the intensity increased by 85.2%!!! Their GDP change over this same period was -3%. Slovenia is the same story....negative GDP changes lead to postive GERD Intensity changes. I bring these two examples up now because these two countries leap frogged Canada from 2008 largely with help from MR. GDP. In fact, in all these examples any country that showed a negative GDP growth over either period would also show positive GERD. The only exception being Spain in the 2008-2011 period. And we saw the same inverse correlation with the postive GDP growth relating to negative GERD intensity. Game over waldo. As Ace once said.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu5JdmsLWVk

Apparently....winning is just something I'm good at when it comes to debating you. And you had me on ignore hey? Just trying to save yourself from another woopin'. As for Bragg Creek....yup...was there this summer AGAIN. Know exactly where it is. Have you figured out the definition of double yet? Or how about 4x. And which IPCC statements are you looking for? Obviously your ignore status didn't actually ask about statements.

Yet when an oil company comes along and says we'll pay you a bunch of cash to get oil from THEIR land....they have no problems with screwing over the environment.

I noticed that you must have said this three times. Size of the GDP is not changing GDP. Would you like an explaination on the difference?

Actually....no. That was your nattering point for which you have incessently whined this whole thread about. You see some chart saying that Canada's funding is down and you aren't bright enough to see the CANADA they are talking about is comprised of other areas than just federal funding. I would go on to discuss the Business funding's large portion to this game but as other MLW members have already pointed out....you don't have the teensy little bit of knowledge about business. Tell you what....you can talk all you want about your PROJECTIONS but when they turn into REALITY....when the State of the Nation 2014 comes out. Until then....they are ust projections....much like the projections you flaunt about extreme weather when in actuality the IPCC shows low confidence of extreme weather. BUT OH THE PROJECTIONS!! LOL! Again....you have yet to step up and tell anyone what side you support. Are you a coward? Never really belonged to a side? What is it waldo?

And if you would have followed the Trading Economics site you would have seen that they get their GDP from the World Bank too. I know you can't deal with another loss but the data I have is correct (and of course, not your GDP -PPP data that you tried so hard to push...lol). The issue I had was a labelling issue....very similar to you saying it was Iceland when it was Ireland. Now you didn't see me chirp about that.

A throw away? You constructed a freaking CHART for a throw away???? Wow. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You messed up SOOOOOOOO bad here and this backpeddle is priceless. GDP based on PPP.....too funny. I'm saying that they don't use GDP based on PPP when calculating GERD Intensity. Again. you screw the pooch by offering me an example of GERD alone. Show me an example of them calculating GERD Intensity based on GDP-PPP. You do know what the difference between GERD and GERD intensity is? How about GDP? Do you know how to spell GDP? This one will go down as classic waldo.

You're actually joking here right? You have to be because no one can be this obtuse. You present a graph that compares various countries based on their GERD intensities full well knowing that the data years don't match up but then you try to call me out on using the data from that? You have lost it....if you ever really had it. Of course, all you need to do is look at the 2008-2010 change in GDP for Australia and it AGAIN backs up my point that the increase in GDP lead to a decrease in GERD intensity. I even spoke on how the 2008-2010 change was more prevalent than the 2008-2011 change. Yikes. I get that your narcisstic ways won't allow you to admit you're wrong, but this is ridiculous!

As usual....you say write paragraphs but yet say nothing. Constant deflection. The world went through a recession and I was able to show a correlation responding to the GERD Intensities based on that recession. All you can do is pick away at the data source....man....this is so typical waldo.

The only thing weasley here is your feable attempt at a response. You know I have you and this is the best you can do. I'm loving this....it makes it five now! Oh how you must just hate the defeat.