waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Again....you post a bunch of info and offer zero insight of your own. Is that your thing? I've offered no shortage of what you label "insight"... the Australian Commission report is a very lengthy and detailed document. I simply provided a summary extract from that report/document... it's fairly self-explanatory, although those with readily apparent reading comprehension difficulty may have challenges. If you need a hand with anything in the report, don't hesitate to bring it forward, hey? Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 I've offered no shortage of what you label "insight"... the Australian Commission report is a very lengthy and detailed document. I simply provided a summary extract from that report/document... it's fairly self-explanatory, although those with readily apparent reading comprehension difficulty may have challenges. If you need a hand with anything in the report, don't hesitate to bring it forward, hey? Insight would be words of your own whcih you have offered....hmmm...let me count your post.....zero! Now...if you are claiming that you have offered insight on other threads, then I would advise you to stick to those threads to discuss as that would be against forum rules to just troll it here. But don't let me stop you from pretending you are offering insight. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 So seriously....why did all these events happen in the past but yet activist keep using similar events from today as if its the end of the world? I need to know these things waldo. Why? Why? Why? just admit you can't... or you refuse to... provide attribution specifics for the past "events" you want to speak to. Just admit it. of course, what this really shows (emphasizes, since it's been evident since this threads inception), is you can't grasp the concept, the underlying theme being addressed/discussed; that of "increased prevalence". An increased prevalence of extreme events (some frequency, some intensity, some both) as compared to the past, an increased prevalence being attributed to climate change. Your sole response is to stamp your feet and bluster about single events from the past! No matter how many times the distinction has been made and spoken at length to, within this very thread, you simply ignore it. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 just admit you can't... or you refuse to... provide attribution specifics for the past "events" you want to speak to. Just admit it. of course, what this really shows (emphasizes, since it's been evident since this threads inception), is you can't grasp the concept, the underlying theme being addressed/discussed; that of "increased prevalence". An increased prevalence of extreme events (some frequency, some intensity, some both) as compared to the past, an increased prevalence being attributed to climate change. Your sole response is to stamp your feet and bluster about single events from the past! No matter how many times the distinction has been made and spoken at length to, within this very thread, you simply ignore it. Haven't ignored anything. There has been no increase in severity or intensity as shown in both failed attempts with the Calgary floods and now with the hurricanes. I have shown you the data from Environment Canada and NOAA but you simply choose not to accept it. I can't help you with that. Contrarily...I have asked you why those so called extreme events happened in the past and yet you offer nothing. Complete nothingness. Keep deflecting. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Insight would be words of your own whcih you have offered....hmmm...let me count your post.....zero! Now...if you are claiming that you have offered insight on other threads, then I would advise you to stick to those threads to discuss as that would be against forum rules to just troll it here. But don't let me stop you from pretending you are offering insight. oh... did I strike a nerve! Has that Australian Commission report rattled you! If you have concerns from that report and the summary "insight" extract provided... please do bring it forward... please bring it forward. Do something - offer something... something other than your continued unsubstantiated opinion! That would surely be refreshing! Just make it something that doesn't have you stumbling back to your prior claims of 'scientists manipulating data'. This is a conspiracy free zone, ya know! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 oh... did I strike a nerve! Has that Australian Commission report rattled you! If you have concerns from that report and the summary "insight" extract provided... please do bring it forward... please bring it forward. Do something - offer something... something other than your continued unsubstantiated opinion! That would surely be refreshing! Just make it something that doesn't have you stumbling back to your prior claims of 'scientists manipulating data'. This is a conspiracy free zone, ya know! How do I even offer something on the nothingness that you provided. At least say something. I know you are a little gun shy after going 3 and 0 but if you're going to be here then you'll have to try. Otherwise it will be a "catch you on the flip side MLW" event again. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Haven't ignored anything. There has been no increase in severity or intensity as shown in both failed attempts with the Calgary floods and now with the hurricanes. I have shown you the data from Environment Canada and NOAA but you simply choose not to accept it. I can't help you with that. Contrarily...I have asked you why those so called extreme events happened in the past and yet you offer nothing. Complete nothingness. Keep deflecting. you're obtuse to the max! Even if your claims were true... which they're not (other than in your own dreams), the scope is global! Get that - global! If you have further unsubstantiated concerns to bring forward, I suggest you take it up with the World Meteorological Organization... you know, the original report reference (and the particular statement attributed to NOAA) that so set you off to begin with. Or maybe it was the IPCC quotes I offered; if so, perhaps you should take up your concerns there. Or perhaps it was this latest Australian Commission report... I trust they'll take your feedback and possibly issue a retraction/update, one solely based on your personal opinion! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 this explains everything!!! You have a most selective (self-serving) local/regional mindset butting up against a global reality!!! Oh my! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 you're obtuse to the max! Even if your claims were true... which they're not (other than in your own dreams), the scope is global! Get that - global! If you have further unsubstantiated concerns to bring forward, I suggest you take it up with the World Meteorological Organization... you know, the original report reference (and the particular statement attributed to NOAA) that so set you off to begin with. Or maybe it was the IPCC quotes I offered; if so, perhaps you should take up your concerns there. Or perhaps it was this latest Australian Commission report... I trust they'll take your feedback and possibly issue a retraction/update, one solely based on your personal opinion! Whoa....slow down with the personal attacks. I'm glad that you are trying to deflect me to ask these tough questions to the WMO or the IPCC as its apparent that you lack the capabilites to do so. Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 this explains everything!!! You have a most selective (self-serving) local/regional mindset butting up against a global reality!!! Oh my! No...it appears I am taking up my logical, fact based numbers up against your dillusional reality. Yup...that is what it is. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Whoa....slow down with the personal attacks. I'm glad that you are trying to deflect me to ask these tough questions to the WMO or the IPCC as its apparent that you lack the capabilites to do so. no personal attacks were made - quit playing the victim. You have no tough questions. All you have is you attempting to shift the onus onto me to attempt to provide you with the support/substantiation you can't bring forward. Like I said, I suggest you bring your unqualified, unsubstantiated opinion forward to the groups you're taking direct exception to. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 No...it appears I am taking up my logical, fact based numbers up against your dillusional reality. Yup...that is what it is. no - you haven't the basic wherewithal to understand the premise you were railing against was/is global in nature. This is your biggest FAIL to-date! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 no - you haven't the basic wherewithal to understand the premise you were railing against was/is global in nature. This is your biggest FAIL to-date! 3 and 0 waldo. 3 and 0 Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 no personal attacks were made - quit playing the victim. You have no tough questions. All you have is you attempting to shift the onus onto me to attempt to provide you with the support/substantiation you can't bring forward. Like I said, I suggest you bring your unqualified, unsubstantiated opinion forward to the groups you're taking direct exception to. Yup personal attack noted. Constant deflection also noted. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 it's called, wait for it... GLOBAL warming... not self-serving Local/Regional warming!!! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 3 and 0 waldo. 3 and 0 did you wet your pants? Sorry, you shouldn't let your imaginary world reality intrude here! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 it's called, wait for it... GLOBAL warming... not self-serving Local/Regional warming!!! Then why do you keep bringing up regional examples? Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 did you wet your pants? Sorry, you shouldn't let your imaginary world reality intrude here! 3 and 0. Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 oh my! Let's recap: you were railing against all these positions/statements that speak to an increased prevalence of world-wide extreme events (either frequency, intensity, or both), in association with/to increased warming/climate change... and you thought your lil' local perspective (and unsubstantiated opinion) would take on the reputable organizations presenting the position/statements within a global context. Of course you would!!! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Then why do you keep bringing up regional examples? no - that was you! We could start with your response to the WMO report/quote, hey LocalBoy!!! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 oh my! Let's recap: you were railing against all these positions/statements that speak to an increased prevalence of world-wide extreme events (either frequency, intensity, or both), in association with/to increased warming/climate change... and you thought your lil' local perspective (and unsubstantiated opinion) would take on the reputable organizations presenting the position/statements within a global context. Of course you would!!! Yup....I did. It sucks that little ol' me was able to put a big hole in your theories, hey? How are you going to sleep tonight? Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 no - that was you! We could start with your response to the WMO report/quote, hey LocalBoy!!! The report which uses local events to try and make a claim? The report which you submitted but of course offered zero insight for? Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 Yup....I did. It sucks that little ol' me was able to put a big hole in your theories, hey? How are you going to sleep tonight? you truly are deluded! My theories??? There's really no point in continuing. You've embarrassed yourself to the nth degree. You've shown you haven't a clue about the very thing you thought you were arguing against!!! Global vs. Local... what a concept! Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 The report which uses local events to try and make a claim? The report which you submitted but of course offered zero insight for? no - the report that utilized global temperature readings and precipitation amounts to speak to climate change impacting local weather (extreme events)... with the emphasis being on the increased prevalence of those weather events against the impacting global indices. Your whole and complete nonsensical premise is that you think by simply providing a single local event that doesn't align with an increase (frequency, intensity, or both), (which you haven't actually provided), you've countered the over-riding premise of an increase in extreme events being associated with climate change. you can keep barking about offered insight... you've certainly never offered anything where you've had to actually speak, at length, in detail, in your own words. Your insight is limited to dropping links with a thunderous "ta da"!!! Quote
Accountability Now Posted July 9, 2013 Report Posted July 9, 2013 you truly are deluded! My theories??? There's really no point in continuing. You've embarrassed yourself to the nth degree. You've shown you haven't a clue about the very thing you thought you were arguing against!!! Global vs. Local... what a concept! You're right...you have no point in continuing as you should have realized that you were fighting a lost caused from the begininning. You can't fight facts waldo....but like I said...keep reading your Where's Waldo books and one day you can compete at my level. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.