Alberta floods

[waldo]

Boost my numbers? You are the one trying to show that this flood is the worst ever.

why would I need to bother trying to show something that's been established, pretty much from the onset. This current 2013 flood is the worst ever. Quit fabricating my statements/position. Boost your numbers? Why, yes... why else, in the context of Calgary, would you interject numbers from the Bragg Creek location, 46km away from Calgary? You sure are ignoring my repeated references to your big-time fail here, right? You do know where Bragg Creek is, right?

I gave you 959 cms as the 2013 number and you are arguing that it should be 692? So what you are saying is this flood is even lower than the 1932 flood which resulted in a peak flow of 836cms. Wow...aruguing with you isn't even fun as you concede so easily.

yes, you're giving the (Elbow River) at Bragg Creek number... I'm giving you the Sarcee number... you know, Calgary!!! Your focus was Calgary, right? I also gave you the option to pick from the 'below Glenmore' number, if you'd like... I just went with the Sarcee rather than interject the internal Calgary city reservoir/dam into the mix.

So lets just sum this up for the fine people looking to weigh in on this. Waldo starts the claim off by saying the 2013 flood was double the flow rate of the 1932 flood. Double of course meaning twice as much. (Waldo....let me know if you want me to slow down for you). So on the Elbow River the flow at Bragg Creek in 1932 was 836. So double (as Waldo says) would be 1672 cms. HMMMMMM??? Pick any point you want Waldo....its not even close to double. Lets look at the Bow. 1932 number was 1520 cms. Let's see....double would mean taking that number and adding the same number to it....that would make it 3,040. And what is the number for 2013? Oh....its 1740.

Wow...so wrong but you must be used to that by now.

yeesh! Again, you're with the Bragg Creek number! You really out to know when to fold em'. In any case, in your fevered pitch you got ahead of yourself. Why flog with your incorrect interpretation of my reference... interjecting your Bragg Creek number nonsense, when the reference was explained to you and you're actually challenging it later in your own post (see next post)? Again, how desperate are you?

[waldo]

Ah...there we have it. You're relying on media coverage from a mayor who has had 8 hours sleep in four days. And me....well I'm getting numbers directly from the source (Alberta Environment). Shame on you Waldo...for a guy who is all about citations, graphs and charts....you are now relying on hearsay from a mayor possibly starting to work on his claim for federal funding? You're right...let's not look at objective numbers...let's go with whatever he says. LMFAO!!!

again, how desperate are you? Are you so desperate that you need to attach sleep deprivation and a slimy piece of federal funding innuendo into the mix? It's also quite telling that you need to categorize Mayor Nenshi's statement, repeated across national/local TV & media outlets, for days, as "hearsay". Yes, as you say, "LMFAO!!!"

.

Math? You have provided a statement. I have provided the math. Math consists of number (1,2,3 etc). I know you really struggle here so I'll show you agian...Bow river 2005 was 791 cms. Bow river 2013 is 1740 cms. So you then take the larger number (1740) and divide by the smaller number (791) and this will give you an answer of 2.2 which some people would say is double...not quadruple (oh wait....you might not get that...it means four times).

again, how desperate are you to flog an incorrect interpretation of my reference?

Seriously quit wasting forum thread time and admit that you screwed up believing in hearsay when the numbers just don't back your claim! At least I can respect that.

Just say you were wrong and we can move on. No shame in that...is there?

why do you continue to label Mayor Nenshi's statement as "hearsay"? Clearly, rightly or wrongly, someone in his administration provided him that detail. I'll have no problem stating Mayor Nenshi's statement of a '4 times worse flow rate than 2005', may be incorrect... if you also step up and state your linked document reference wasn't an exclusive 'Bow River' only reference... that you failed big time by interjecting your wrong location Bragg Creek nonsense into the mix. I also note Nenshi's comment, also carried in national/local media, that "flow rate monitoring shut down for about 4 hours"... power outages, ya know! The implication being offered was that the levels could be even higher... that they didn't know since monitoring was kaput during that period, presumably, in relation to power outages.

as for what you suggest you 'can respect'... that's mighty big of you; frankly, I could give a rats patooey, what you respect. As for your, "no shame in that"... is there any shame in the federal funding innuendo you threw at Mayor Nenshi?... is there any shame in the fact Mayor Nenshi knows where Calgary/Bragg Creek are located - but you don't?

[guyser]

Really. So you think if someone had a house/property valued at $3 million dollars, the government is going to reimburse them to the tune of $3 million dollars?

An owner of a house and property worth $3M most definitwely will not get $3M.

The land is still there and any valuation difference for the land will be as a result of the market turning.

Provincially I suspect there is a disaster relief programme . The intent is to assist those where damage is beyond the financial capacity of the person.

Generally not covered is 'other than necessary' clothing furniture, landscaping, antiques, wages deductibles and the like. At no time (if same policy) is more than 90% of loss paid out from the Dis relief fund. Secondary or seasonal dwellings are shit out of luck on any relief.

Flood is rarely bought in this country for homeowners, and not available from all carriers.

The key is to be ready and witness it coming up through the floor drain and voila ....sewer back up claim! (good luck w that) Sewer back up has nothing to do with flood insurance though. Although it is cheap , some poeple think its going to cover a flood.

Commercial policies have it included so those businesses will be already negotiating their own recovery strategies with the money that is to come. The deductibles are very high , like $50,000 for a small apartment building.

Will be a it tough for Calgary for awhile. There big show is only a week or two away and they have to have it go on !How? Dont know, but they'll figure it out.

[GostHacked]

caused by??? Just how simplistic is your position/understanding? What causes the increased moisture that turns into the rainfall? What causes jet-stream shifts? What causes blocking events that holds systems in place?

.

Going to bring this back up.

We have modified the terrain to the point where the environment cannot even handle small floods, let alone huge ones like this one. The weather will ALWAYS get the better of us.

A good portion of Europe is like this and part of the reason we saw the huge floods in Easter Europe. Even our sewer systems in many cities cannot handle that much water. We have impacted the land's ability to handle flood water. Replace a march with a suburb and you are going to experience more and severe flooding.

Live on a river's edge? Don't complain if you experience flooding even ONCE in your lifetime. Especially in a large urbanized environment, there is NO way for a city to handle this type of flooding.

So, do we blame climate change? Or our inability to change and adapt to an ever changing world?

[GostHacked]

You guys can debate the climate change issue, but have you considered that maybe this flooding was actually caused by the government's weather control satellites? At Alex Jones Prison Planet, they think this is a NWO plot!

-k

Apparently weather mod sats were being developed, but that program has been cancelled.

These ones fall into the Solar Radiation Management (SRM) type of weather modification.

http://www.google.com/patents/US5984239

Weather modification by artificial satellites

US 5984239 A

Abstract

A Satellite Weather Modification System (SWMS) uses earth satellites to harness solar energy to modify the thermodynamics and composition of the earth's atmosphere. SWMS has three subsystems: The first subsystem includes a network of earth satellites called Satellite Engines (SEs) used to reflect solar energy and/or transform solar energy into other forms of energy beams discharged at specified locations. The media at these locations and the media through which the energy beams pass absorb these energies and change them into heat. The second subsystem includes a large network of Remote Sensing Devices (RSDs). These sensors are used to measure local media compositions, dynamic parameters and thermodynamic properties. Sensor measurements are fed back to the third subsystem, which includes a network of Ground Control Stations (GCSs). GCSs provide energy beam guidance by estimating each beam's characteristics and its aim point trajectory as functions of time. Integration of these three subsystems establishes a sensor feedback energy beam guidance and control loop. SWMS's weather modification applications include alteration of precipitation, reclaiming of wasteland, reducing damage by bad weather, and improving environment. Its non-weather related applications include supplying concentrated energy to electricity generating stations (solar, wind and hydro), high latitude greenhouse farms, and solar powered airplanes.

http://aeromotores.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/usp-5-984-239-weather-modification-by-artificial-satellites-16-11-1999.pdf

[waldo]

So, do we blame climate change? Or our inability to change and adapt to an ever changing world?

you may want to accept climate change as a contributor - or not, clearly your call. If one accepts your premise (which I don't), how do you propose changing/adapting to the existing, as you say, "land's inability to handle flood water"? More pointedly, as outlined several times earlier in this thread, given the climate change related aspects that are stated to have contributing impacts on, for example, increased flood frequency... why would you choose, outright, to dismiss them? Dismiss them, outright, in favour of some other force/mechanism/choice/etc., causing/contributing to the change? You appear to be taking lengths/efforts to consider anything but - climate change. Why so?

[GostHacked]

you may want to accept climate change as a contributor - or not, clearly your call.

I've never denied climate change, not once. I deny the claim of CO2 being the prime contributor to climate change. That has been my position all along and will continue to do so as long as science is done by consensus.

If one accepts your premise (which I don't), how do you propose changing/adapting to the existing, as you say, "land's inability to handle flood water"?

Smart planning for urbanized centers. Like not building on swampland and marshes that are key in natures ability to handle floods.

More pointedly, as outlined several times earlier in this thread, given the climate change related aspects that are stated to have contributing impacts on, for example, increased flood frequency... why would you choose, outright, to dismiss them? Dismiss them, outright, in favour of some other force/mechanism/choice/etc., causing/contributing to the change? You appear to be taking lengths/efforts to consider anything but - climate change. Why so?

Well you can cry about CO2 all you want, but since the plans to mitigate it are not working, locally or globally and more to the point there is no political will to mitigate it. Lots of hot air, but little in terms of real meaningful action.

Overall I appreciate the attempt at turning the tables on me.

[Accountability Now]

Wow...three separate posts all with incoherant mish-mash. Let me summarize what you are saying here:

1. Do I know where Bragg Creek is? Considering I have friends that live there. Yes I know where it is. Nice attempt at making that your go to point but it didn't quite work much like most things you attempt on here. Do you always steer away from facts when arguing?

2. You feel that measuing the points at Bragg Creek verus points in Calgary make a difference. Hmm...take a look at this paper done shortly after the 2005 flood (http://www.ucalgary.ca/ensc/files/ensc/ENSC502%2005-06%20Living%20with%20Our%20Rivers%20BRBC%20Combined.pdf). Very specifically look at page 10 where it charts the flow rates at Bragg Creek, Above Calgary and at the Glenmore Dam. You will be VERY interested in reading the conclusion below the chart which says:

"River Discharge does not increase significantly moving downstream"

OUCH...so much for anything on the Bragg Creek smoking gun that you so desparately wanted. Seriously...LMFAO!! Do you want to post three more comments about Bragg Creek to try and derail this thread? I would say it was a nice try but it really wasn't. Like I said...take ANY POINT and it still is NOT double like you said. EPIC FAIL waldo.....EPIC!!

3. You have backed your claim by a statement made by a politician. You have not provided any citations, charts graphs or ANYTHING that objectively proves that this flood was DOUBLE the flowrate as per your claim. You just can't admit it. All that you can do is look at the data I have provided and pull out nuances in a horrible and pathetic way to divert from your poor statement. You can ignore the paper all you want however I have also provided data from Alberta Environment and it clearly shows the flow rates and their comparison from year to year. NO WHERE IS IT DOUBLE!!!

4. You commented a number of times about how desparate I am? Quite the contrary.....I was not the one to make a bold face lie about the numbers and now backpeddling and side stepping to try and avoid the truth. What's next waldo? Are you going to break out spell check and spend two more posts on that? YI honestly don't care about ANYTHING you say as you have yet to answer the question:

IS THIS FLOOD DOUBLE WHAT THE WORST FLOOD OF 1932 WAS?

I'll save you the time and embarrasment. Its not. Its right in line with it whcih clearly shows that your alarmist views on this being a global warming event are completely false. Good try though.

Ok...that's about it. Now I don't want you to pout about this and threaten to leave MLW like you did in the From my Cold Dead Hands thread. (as per below). I'm not going to lie....I actually enjoyed this site while you were pouting. You must have been kicked off your other forum and decided to come back. That's a shame!

MLW... C - U - Later! See you on the next side!

[bush_cheney2004]

I thought I saw this too....thanks for preserving my sanity.

waldo, on 30 Mar 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

MLW... C - U - Later! See you on the next side!

Edited June 24, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Wow...three separate posts all with incoherant mish-mash. Let me summarize what you are saying here:

1. Do I know where Bragg Creek is? Considering I have friends that live there. Yes I know where it is. Nice attempt at making that your go to point but it didn't quite work much like most things you attempt on here. Do you always steer away from facts when arguing?

2. You feel that measuing the points at Bragg Creek verus points in Calgary make a difference. Hmm...take a look at this paper done shortly after the 2005 flood (http://www.ucalgary.ca/ensc/files/ensc/ENSC502 05-06 Living with Our Rivers BRBC Combined.pdf). Very specifically look at page 10 where it charts the flow rates at Bragg Creek, Above Calgary and at the Glenmore Dam. You will be VERY interested in reading the conclusion below the chart which says:

"River Discharge does not increase significantly moving downstream"

OUCH...so much for anything on the Bragg Creek smoking gun that you so desparately wanted. Seriously...LMFAO!! Do you want to post three more comments about Bragg Creek to try and derail this thread? I would say it was a nice try but it really wasn't. Like I said...take ANY POINT and it still is NOT double like you said. EPIC FAIL waldo.....EPIC!!

just say you screwed up in your Bragg Creek fail! Does it make any difference? Why... yes, yes it does - and you didn't need to look back in history. You simply needed to recognize (and accept) the numbers pointed out to you. You're incorrectly flogging 959 m³/s at Bragg Creek... I pointed out to you the Sarcee number @ 628 m³/s (and the difference is even more below the Glenmore!). Hey now, that's a difference of 331 m³/s!!! Somehow this, your most recent attempt to save face, has you claiming "no significant increase moving downstream". Yup... just that in this flood we see you pushing a number ~35% greater than a proper reflection of the actual flow rate within the city of Calgary! EPIC FAIL... EPIC!! Clearly, you have NO Accountability Now!

like I said, like I keep saying - you really need to know when to fold em'!

.

[waldo]

3. You have backed your claim by a statement made by a politician. You have not provided any citations, charts graphs or ANYTHING that objectively proves that this flood was DOUBLE the flowrate as per your claim. You just can't admit it. All that you can do is look at the data I have provided and pull out nuances in a horrible and pathetic way to divert from your poor statement. You can ignore the paper all you want however I have also provided data from Alberta Environment and it clearly shows the flow rates and their comparison from year to year. NO WHERE IS IT DOUBLE!!!

I provided a legitimate reference/statement, one you've tried to smear with your innuendo. That reference's statement was carried far and wide, across national/local media outlets (radio, TV, print)... I linked you to an example of the exact reference/statement carried by the National Post. That legitimate reference's statement was honestly used to extend upon your own references numbers. If you have trouble accepting that, go pound sand!

typical! You call your fails "nuances"!

[waldo]

4. You commented a number of times about how desparate I am? Quite the contrary.....I was not the one to make a bold face lie about the numbers and now backpeddling and side stepping to try and avoid the truth.

bold face lie? You need to cool your jets - big time! You really shouldn't get this worked up over your misplaced intentions. There was no "bold face lie". A reference was provided... the reference was honestly applied. To meet the level of your bluster, one would need to foster a purposeful intent to deceive. Is that what you're saying... is that the basis of you screaming "lie... bold face lie"?

Its right in line with it whcih clearly shows that your alarmist views on this being a global warming event are completely false. Good try though.

wow! You're out of control. I don't think I could have been any clearer in speaking to the possibility of a climate change contribution... of going to lengths to quote from the World Meteorological Organization's statement, emphasizing no definitive links to any one particular extreme event - simply emphasizing that there is an increased frequency of occurrence of extreme events coincident with accelerated global warming/associated climate change. Again, please quit fabricating statements/positions for me... how desperate are you in doing so?

.

[waldo]

Ok...that's about it. Now I don't want you to pout about this and threaten to leave MLW like you did in the From my Cold Dead Hands thread. (as per below). I'm not going to lie....I actually enjoyed this site while you were pouting. You must have been kicked off your other forum and decided to come back. That's a shame!

"that's about it"... I was hoping you had... more! Pout? Huh... say what? Pout over giving you yet another rubbin! Harrrrdly.

oh boy... how hard did you look to find that quote. You enjoyed the site while I was gone hey? Well... you did make me look. That post was March 30. I see a continuous stream of ongoing posts from me starting up April 2. I didn't go anywhere. Those two days I didn't post must have really been sweet for you!!! Oh buddy, you're too easy!

.

[waldo]

I thought I saw this too....thanks for preserving my sanity.

say it ain't so... say this isn't the post you were rambling on about the last week or so!!! The one you couldn't recall but were adamant that I had made a post and, as you stated, "edited its contents away". Funny thing here - I don't see a MLW edit declaration showing. The post was never edited. Are you sure this is the same post you felt was a real zinger, one you couldn't let go of... one you felt was just soooooo important to you... but couldn't remember!!!

Edited June 24, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

I've never denied climate change, not once. I deny the claim of CO2 being the prime contributor to climate change. That has been my position all along and will continue to do so as long as science is done by consensus.

in this case, in this 'Alberta flood' case, I didn't say or imply anything about your denial. I simply said it was your call on whether or not to accept climate change as a contributor to the flood.

.

Smart planning for urbanized centers. Like not building on swampland and marshes that are key in natures ability to handle floods.

your thinking is small-scale - to say the least! But you're not addressing my question. You speaking of the "future" - ya, well good luck with that, regardless of what generalized gains you might presume to squeeze out of that. I was speaking to the past/present... what's already occurred. Again, "how do you propose changing/adapting to the existing, as you say, "land's inability to handle flood water"?".

.

Well you can cry about CO2 all you want, but since the plans to mitigate it are not working, locally or globally and more to the point there is no political will to mitigate it. Lots of hot air, but little in terms of real meaningful action.

Overall I appreciate the attempt at turning the tables on me.

gains are being made... locally, regionally. Clearly, in those jurisdictions there is a political will. But, why are you so defensive? I simply asked you: "given the climate change related aspects that are stated to have contributing impacts on, for example, increased flood frequency... why would you choose, outright, to dismiss them? Dismiss them, outright, in favour of some other force/mechanism/choice/etc., causing/contributing to the change? You appear to be taking lengths/efforts to consider anything but - climate change. Why so?". Pretty basic questions - not sure why you'd react so defensively... why you'd be so adverse to actually providing answers.

.

[Accountability Now]

just say you screwed up in your Bragg Creek fail! Does it make any difference? Why... yes, yes it does - and you didn't need to look back in history. You simply needed to recognize (and accept) the numbers pointed out to you. You're incorrectly flogging 959 m³/s at Bragg Creek... I pointed out to you the Sarcee number @ 628 m³/s (and the difference is even more below the Glenmore!). Hey now, that's a difference of 331 m³/s!!! Somehow this, your most recent attempt to save face, has you claiming "no significant increase moving downstream". Yup... just that in this flood we see you pushing a number ~35% greater than a proper reflection of the actual flow rate within the city of Calgary! EPIC FAIL... EPIC!! Clearly, you have NO Accountability Now!

like I said, like I keep saying - you really need to know when to fold em'!

.

Incorrectly flogging 959? You have gone completely mad. That number was a projected number from ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT. Not something I made up (unlike the crap you are spewing). Again...you just don't get it. If that 959 number does decrease to 628 then that means the flood is less severe. Which means this is NOT GLOBAL WARMING. Oh dear lord...how are you going to deal with that?

Keep saying what you want...but if you keep tossing up flops then I'm all over you.

[GostHacked]

your thinking is small-scale - to say the least! But you're not addressing my question. You speaking of the "future" - ya, well good luck with that,

Well at least you seem about as cynical about the future like me.

why you'd be so adverse to actually providing answers.

I made a suggestion, you either

1 - ignored it

2 - did not read or understand my post

3 - there is no try.

I say plant trees? Nothing but laughter from you.

I say better urban planning as not to destroy the areas that have the ability to control floods. Ignored.

So you are right I should make suggestions, but I am wondering if anyone will read them.

Edited June 24, 2013 by GostHacked

[Accountability Now]

I provided a legitimate reference/statement, one you've tried to smear with your innuendo. That reference's statement was carried far and wide, across national/local media outlets (radio, TV, print)... I linked you to an example of the exact reference/statement carried by the National Post. That legitimate reference's statement was honestly used to extend upon your own references numbers. If you have trouble accepting that, go pound sand!

typical! You call your fails "nuances"!

No stats or figures to back it up....how defeatist. Man....you really should try something else with your spare time.

[Accountability Now]

bold face lie? You need to cool your jets - big time! You really shouldn't get this worked up over your misplaced intentions. There was no "bold face lie". A reference was provided... the reference was honestly applied. To meet the level of your bluster, one would need to foster a purposeful intent to deceive. Is that what you're saying... is that the basis of you screaming "lie... bold face lie"?

I need to cool my jets? Make me. You have the choice to ignore me....go ahead and do so.

Its either a bold face lie or you were wrong. You won't admit that you were wrong so I go back to point 1.

[Accountability Now]

"that's about it"... I was hoping you had... more! Pout? Huh... say what? Pout over giving you yet another rubbin! Harrrrdly.

oh boy... how hard did you look to find that quote. You enjoyed the site while I was gone hey? Well... you did make me look. That post was March 30. I see a continuous stream of ongoing posts from me starting up April 2. I didn't go anywhere. Those two days I didn't post must have really been sweet for you!!! Oh buddy, you're too easy!

.

Didn't have to look very long. Much like the rest of the people on the forum, I marked it as the day this forum improved 10 fold. It was sweet not to have you on this post. Its VERY tiresome trying to educate you on how to do math. Seriously....worst flood ever was 1500 cms. You say this one is double whcih would mean 3000 cms. You are the opposite of easy...that is for sure.

[Accountability Now]

I thought I saw this too....thanks for preserving my sanity.

I know. It was only a hope but unforuntely not reality.

[waldo]

Incorrectly flogging 959? You have gone completely mad. That number was a projected number from ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT. Not something I made up (unlike the crap you are spewing). Again...you just don't get it. If that 959 number does decrease to 628 then that means the flood is less severe. Which means this is NOT GLOBAL WARMING. Oh dear lord...how are you going to deal with that?

Keep saying what you want...but if you keep tossing up flops then I'm all over you.

you simply refuse to read what's presented to you. Of course I know where you got your number from... I'm the one that gave you the detailed numbers, from Sarcee (the number you should have been using if your context was Calgary, which it was); Alberta Environment numbers certainly more detailed than your summary reference. Who said you made your number up? As you say, "You have gone completely mad". This has already been pointed out to you once... don't you read? You used the higher Bragg Creek number in relation to your challenging the doubling reference... it's approximately 35% higher than the actual Calgary city number. The relative comparison was being made to a 2005 number (for the Bow)... I was initially laughing at you for simply introducing Bragg Creek into a Calgary city context (46km outside of Calgary proper)... that laughing doubled-up when you stupidly did your own doubling comparison (to the Bragg Creek number) by drawing the contrast/comparison across/between the 2 rivers - duh! My comparison was always done with respect to assumptions the numbers in your linked reference's 'top 10 (worst)' table list associated to the Bow River... yes, it was an assumption since your reference didn't explicitly declare the river association to each of the table's entries. And, yes, I most certainly declared my assumption and explained why it was an assumption. So... these were two of your fails - big time fails!

keep saying what you want... but if you keep tossing up flops then I'm all over you.

[waldo]

No stats or figures to back it up....how defeatist. Man....you really should try something else with your spare time.

no - again, "I provided a legitimate reference/statement, one you've tried to smear with your innuendo. That reference's statement was carried far and wide, across national/local media outlets (radio, TV, print)... I linked you to an example of the exact reference/statement carried by the National Post. That legitimate reference's statement was honestly used to extend upon your own references numbers. If you have trouble accepting that, go pound sand!"

[waldo]

I need to cool my jets? Make me. You have the choice to ignore me....go ahead and do so.

Its either a bold face lie or you were wrong. You won't admit that you were wrong so I go back to point 1.

make you? Just how old are you? Again, the reference was legitimate, carried everywhere, repeated over and over again throughout all media types/outlets for days on end... and it's relevant detail was applied honestly. You chose to declare I lied; a "bold face lie", you stated.

of course, lost in all of this is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that climate change had a contributory influence in the flood. Again, the questions you won't touch with the proverbial '10-metre pole'... the questions you're running from in all your flaming bluster!:

care to offer your insights on the attribution of those earliest worst floods... and what you presume caused/contributed to this latest one? Prior to 2005, you have to go all the way back to 1953 to find a flood in your provided 'top 10'... over a 50 year span to the next 2005 flood event. In those last 60 years, has anything changed in the upstream watershed and in terms of water management practices as compared to those earliest period dates? Are you stating, unequivocally, that you don't accept there may be a climate change impact that contributed to this current flood?

[waldo]

Didn't have to look very long. Much like the rest of the people on the forum, I marked it as the day this forum improved 10 fold.

just another example of your fabrications. I didn't go anywhere... I posted on March 30 and again on April 2! You claimed I "threatened to leave". Show that... quote that threat - sure you can!!! You quoted what I said; which was nothing more than this: "MLW... C - U - Later! See you on the next side! Perhaps you can apply your wizardry and creativeness to pump-out further wild fabrications as to what you think those few short words mean! Go for it!

but really, the waldo is heartened to realize you validate yourself by the imagination you can apply to interpreting my words! And, as before, how desperate are you to troll this quote forward, claim it shows a threat, a pout and exclaim your joyful bliss in my "long extended withdrawal from the board" (for all of 2 days)!!! Man are you desperate!

Edited June 24, 2013 by waldo