Accountability Now

1. Show me who at the NOAA said that 2001-2010 was the most active hurricane decade since 1855. 2. Show me some of this global data for an increase in exteme weather events. 3. Show me anthropogenic ties to the jet stream shift or the artic amplification. Come on partner...time to saddle up if you want to ride with the big boys.

Of the two of us....I am the only one to understand. Understand the fact that you keep blabbing on when your argument fell flat on its face once I exposed what the actual study said. Let me know if you actually read the study... Oh...and let me know when you learn how to actually formulate an argument by linking and naming the proper study verus using an article or press release for your go to punch. I would say that you are better than that.....but I would just be lying if I said it.

The peer reviewed study DOES NOT SAY most of that crap that appears and which you quoted for your post from the article. HUGE DIFFERENCE! HUGE! "the chops to address the actual study"....serious waldingo....you didn't even know the name of the study! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Seriously....my stomach is starting to hurt. Have you learned how to apply links yet? Not one of your quotes came from the study....rather from your article. And yet you say I haven't addressed the study. I showed you the three spots where they even mention anthropogenic all of which are very proving to my points. I would ask if this is all you got....but I know it it. You've got NOTHING! LMFAO!!!! Fail X 2 !!!!! The study never even mentions the word anthropogenic. I love how you so arrogantly assume that AA implies anthropogenic. Do you know what Arctic Amplification is? Francis defines it in the first sentence of her study They have OBSERVED some enhanced warming. It is something that is happening. An observation. Now what is causing it to happen? No one actually knows but people have THEORIES. The fact that you take your theory and treat it like fact only showcases your pomposity.

I have always been against your misguided approach that the changing jet stream was due to anthropogenic causes. I have never flip flopped on that. How do you want me or ANYONE to explain the relative recent jet stream pattern changes when the studies done on the historical trends can't even explain them. Here is it one more time waldo.....chew on this from the study showing the historical trends. What you meant to say is your complete lack of knowledge or ability to provide an answer to that very specific and damning question. Rant and rave all you want about arctic amplifciation, jet streams, warming, cooling, hurricanes.....if you can't make a tie to anthropogenic sources then I would have quote you and say "piss off" Oh...and just to be clear....even your latest video doesn't even touch the topic of anthropogenic sources. How many fails are you going to embarrass yourself with?

Oh really? It doesn't rate it? Are you sure? I'll give you a second to reconsider.......ok....time is up. Quotes directly from your precious WMO document. I guess the red sections aren't ratings? You said the rest is my bluster but unfortunatley you have assumed all the bluster for yourself. Nothing let for me! LMFAO!!!

What increase weather extremes? You have yet to prove that in ANY regard nevermind on this GLOBAL scale that you keep preaching about. How many times do I have to ask....show me your global data supporting this. The only thing you bring up is local/regional examples which I completely bash you on. You call it a tactic but I think you just know your argument is so weak that you arlready know where we are going to pick you apart. Its usually where you are the weakest which just happens to be with logic. Are you completely daft or are you just that bored that you like play games on here? It happened in the 30s....how much anthropogenic force was at play then? Are you actually suggesting that the issues in the 1930s were caused by man too? They were natural...plain and simple. Now what the science behind the 'natural' causes is a guess at this point because the jet stream wasn't well known at that point. They didn't have the data nor did they even know entirely what the were dealing with in the 1930s and it wasn't until WW2 that they started to realize the pattern and nature of the jet stream. Could it have been the jet stream....maybe but zero data will back it up. Of course if you don't want to believe me then lets resort back to your hero Jeff Masters. He comments on a 2006 sutdy put forth measuring historical trends in the jet streams from 1979-2001. The authors of the study discuss the effects in this sliver of time but state the very important point that: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/jet-stream-moved-northwards-270-miles-in-22-years-climate-change-to-b Of course I don't want you to defect this once again....the point is that something natural caused all these issues in the 30s and it wasn't us.

Actually....if you look back to what I said....I said YOUR global warming BS.....as in waldo's global warming BS. The crap you spew on this forum is applaling. If you once....just once acknowledged that the science is not settled and that anthropogenic global warming is JUST A THEORY.....then things would be fine. I don't deny that the world has seen a warming trend but I do have serious doubts that man's involvement is causing it or these so called extremes you warmies keep flaunting. Hence the reason why I continually ask you to prove that man caused it and you continually fail! As for the anecdote....I never did share that one directly with you because I didn't think you would be able to grasp the concept of actually have a face to face conversation with someone. One day though.....one day.

You have yet to face a single challenge that I have presented to you. NOT ONE. By the way...have you found out who in the NOAA actually said it was the most active decade since 1855? Just curious....

Just keep serving up these flops waldo and I'll keep slamming them down! I think this makes it 4 and 0!

I know....its challenging for you to read through this stuff. You should just leave it to the pros. PS....I don't care what the non-peer reviewed article says. I care that the peer reviewed study steered away from anthropogenic sources being the cause. Again...I was asking for you to show me that man was causing this. And you served up this flop? Fail. Who botched what? Seriously.....you called your article a study. You probably didn't even know until I showed you! LMFAO! So are you able to show me how these studies prove that anthropogenic sources are the cause of the jet stream shifting? I guess not because neither study says boo about it. FAIL!!!! So first an article and now a press release? First let me commend you on the proper linkage of this one. You must have had a 7 year old show you how to do it. I must also really commend your authors who appear to be so brave and bold in non-peer reviewed article and non-peer reviewed press release for them to make such claims. However, once they get to their study their tails curl up between their legs and they say this: Quote Man...that is hard core! I really think they are taking a hard stand position on this......or maybe NOT!

Trivial BS? One is a peer reviewed study and the other is an article. All of your quotes came from the ARTICLE....not the STUDY! Even if it has the same authors, the article is NOT peer reviewed and goes on to say so many things that the peer reviewed study DOES NOT. Moreover, they never actually make any grounds on implicating anthropogenic sources in their study....which again is what I asked you to provide. FAIL!!!! You clearly stated that the study's title was Weather extremes: atmospheric waves and climate change when in fact the title of the real study didn't even have 'climate change' in the title. Seriously....they teach how to do a web link in elementary now. I have to believe that you specifcally flipped these titles around so that it sounded MUCH worse than the study really is. Honestly....your lack of comprehension is appalling! You expect anyone to take you seriously when you mess up this bad? I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt on this but as you said, you have screwed up so many other times on this. Its apparent that you are just clueless.

I've never been against the shifting jet stream as a cause. I am just against anthropogenic sources being blamed as the reason for this shift. As for not accpepting natural and human influence, I take harsh exceptions to that. I have only focused on the natural causes because I believe those are the significant reasons we are seeing these extremes. Lets put it this way...these extemes would not be happening if you took the natural causes out of way. Conversely you make it out like the anthropogenic sources are the ONLY reason these are happening. Any suggestion of natural causes is met with harsh critisicm and sarcasm which clearly shows that you have no ability have an open mind on this. At that point I was tired of your wild goose chases by improperly applying links to the right study. As for the video....we see yet another deflection. Why did you provide the video or the study? To provide proof of anthropogenic sources that cause the jet stream to shift....and of course.....there wasn't any. She didn't say it ONCE. Now...as for the actual study. You do realize what the title of the study was...right? Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Hmmm....so what is causing the exteme weather....oh....arctic amplification. Maybe she goes on to talk about how Arctic amplifciation is caused by man. Nope...reading through the study you will not see the word 'man' or 'anthropogenic' appear at all. So I asked you to provide proof of anthropogenic source.....and you came up with this? A study and a video that don't even mention it. EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!

Wrong once again waldo. I have made very direct claims using objective numbers to prove that Katrina doesn't belong in discussion tab. I conclusively showed that there was worse hurricanes in that very year and a much worse storm the year before. But the warmies sure like using Katrina because the man-made levees failed and those poor people living below sea level got levelled. And what were those benign comments again....that Katrina was the worst of the Decade? Yes....let's just look at deaths and cost....what ever is most convenient to scare people...right. I mean seriously....who cares about objective truth.

The same natural causes that brought the 1930s drought. As stated before, if you think that a shifting jet stream is causing the extreme events of today then why wouldn't it be reasonable to beleive that same effect happened back then? Of course....there was no global warming back then and the extremes were worse. No...the main thing that you continue to ignore in your grand deflection is that the 1930 drought was the WORST drought of all time. Whatever natural cause that was behind that drought could easily becausing this one. However, if man was adding an extra component then we would be seeing the effects of 1930 plus X. But we are not. We are seeing extremes less than the 1930s.

Actually yes I am. I have a BSc Environmental Science. What is your background cyber? PS...thanks for being a fan and reading my posts. Of course I did notice you conveniently cropped my quote so that you could gril me. Here's the full one: I am not out to prove there that GW or AGW exists. I just hate seeing either side use the data incorrectly. Both sides do it but I find certain MLW members flaunt the global warming side more than they should. At one of the environmental conferences that I attended a few years back, I had an opportunity to have lunch with a statistician from the NOAA. We started chatting about global warming and man made causes and he had an interesting take on it. He said he was simply a statistician and that he didn't care either way however he would review a large number of papers from global warming theorists and he said that he rejected 99% of them because they used that statistics incorrectly. Again...it comes down to agendas and what people are willing to do to achieve theirs.

MLW is a forum that allows every member to discuss the posted thread. Its not an area for you to post your beliefs and lecture the crowd. If you want that then I advise you leave MLW and start your own blog. The only thread I would have any interest in starting would be one discussing how both sides use data incorrectly to get their message out. Of course I don't need to start a thread to do that....I can just show you here.

Again...all I am really looking at is the anthropogenic sources (ie. Is man causing this?) You have used this post a number of times as some sort of bullet proof case but I think its another one of your Wizard of Oz scare tactics. Let's start from the beginning. The video posted by Jennifer Francis is as the titled states....a video to help understand the jet stream. It does NOT say anything about anthropogenic causes. I don't think you said it would but I just want to be clear that it does not. You then reference a link to a Pottsdam study and you say: This is where your deflection comes into play. The link you provided was NOT to the Pottsdam study but rather an acticle written on "The Conversation" website written by the authors discsussing the study. The website article is called "Weather extremes: atmospheric waves and climate change" HOWEVER the study is actually called "Quasiresonant amplification of planetary wavesand recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes". Let's look at both though. Your posted link had a quote as per below: This quote was NOT from the study as you state but rather from the article. Additionally the quote itself is not as fluid as you present it, rather it is a determined selection of various paragaphs that you wanted to portay. Of course....one of the few paragraphs that you selectively missed out in your post was the final paragraph of this article: So essentially your authors have a suggested mechanism which they feel COULD tie anthropogenic warming to the extreme cases however even they say they haven't had enough time to tell. In my opinion only, I would like to see research using their model with the data available in the 1930s and see what it say but apparently the data is not there....so probably not possible. Now let's look directly at the study. When you click on the link to the study it brings you to an abstract. On this side I clicked on the link which says full text which brought up a six page pdf. I'm trusting this is the article. I searched the 6 page pdf of the study for the word "anthropogenic" and came up with three spots where they actually reference it. First one: Again we see the 32 year caveat. They do go on to say that anthropogenic forcing caused by Arctic amplification. But of course they didn't say it...they just cited it as per footnote 36 (CAPE-Last Interglacial Project Members (2006) Last interglacial Arctic warmth confirms polar ampli fication of climate change. Quat Sci Rev 25:1383–1400) which is a different study altogether. The purpose of the Pottsdam study was to prove their "mechanism" works and they even said....its too soon to tell. The second time we see "anthropogenic" is here: So essentially ANY tie they did make to anthropogenic warming was taken right back in this statement. Furthermore they even said that their model was not the only model. So is anything they said conclusive? Here is the third and final time: So even your authors are saying that other claims who compare the natural magnitudes of natural and anthropogenic forcing are not accurate as they do not provide the mechanism. Its all about the mechanism...the computer modeling. You can make whatever claims you want but you need to back it up which they fully admit is not possible....at this time. So I guess you will have to take this over used cut and paste job out of your rotation? I really did like this example as it reminded me of how you are like the Wizard of Oz. You post these big booming messages that scare people off because they don't have the time or desire to actually look into them. However once you actually dig a little deeper you find that the arguments are no smarter than the scarecrow. In fact they are only a 'strawman' argument.

Your posts are throw aways. Got it. Yup...I've heard of the land use practices but its like you previously said....this was NOT the root cause. The most extreme heat wave and most extreme drought seen in North America were the root causes. Would the dust bowl not have happened if land practices are better....maybe....but the reality is the they certainly would not have happened if the unprecidented heat wave/drought hadn't occurred. Conversely, global warming theorists like to use Katrina as this big bad storm when really it was not an extreme and only ranked 6th all time for intensity. In fact, hurricane Charley one year prior was a full category above it and nothing is said about it. Why? Because it only killed 40 people. Of course the reason for the majority of deaths was the failure of the man-made levees and the simple fact of builing below sea level. However, unlike your attribution to man's involvement in the Dust bowl, you would never cite that Katrina would have been just another storm if the levees held.

What....are you waldo's cheer leader? Is that all you have to offer? As for the temperatures....Michael Hardner just said: This means that its not warming or cooling...its remained the same since 1997. So no....its not still warming as you say. But don't let your pom poms get in the way if you feel like contributing anything.

Sure....but you know what I meant. Now that it hasn't 'increased" like they said it would then they come up with excuses. Its their convenient way of doing things.

Hey Jacee....what's your take on the whole division amongst the AFN. Do you think it will have any effect on them to move forwards? It sounds like Mr Atleo may have more on his plate than just dealing with the Feds. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/07/16/mb-amc-afn-onion-lake-status-cards.html

Michael....don't you think your post should be intened for waldo? Essentially if you don't agree with him he replies with sarcastic responses that usually include "clearly you know nothing of this topic". Where is the buy in there? You don't have to believe me.....a number of other MLW members have said the exact same thing about him. As far as it being "not helpful"....that is your interpreation. However, the fact is that global warming activists have switched positions a number of times when things just aren't going their way. For example, now that temperatures are going down....well now its the oceans causing the problem. Or of course if we see more hurricanes then its global warming but if we see fewer hurricanes then its global warming. They have convenient explanations for anything that happens....just like switching from climate to weather...of course now climate apparently means 30 year stints when it used to mean much longer terms....another convenience for them.

I'm glad you think that the drought of 1930s which of course was the worst ever seen in the US is 'a throw away". Nothing severe there....hey? I'm also glad to see that your answer to the dust bowl is "using computer models"....are those the same models that same to be plauging global warming activists today? How are those models faring with actual numbers? Any other insights on why 1930s were so bad?

Acutally no repeat at all...unlike your cut and paste job

Nope...I added new information about the two previous floods in the 1800s that are believed to be the largest. Unlike you who copied and pasted the exact same blurb without your own insight. Reported