So was it global warming or just people downstream sucking all the water out to keep their lawns green?

Reply: Duncan! I didn’t notice you posting here before. But now I see you’ve been hanging out. Give me a call at home. ~ charles the moderator aka jeez

(for those confused as to how I spot a friend from a first name, I recognize the email address).

Climate Progess blacklisted me for this comment….

I’m not a dem or a repub, but the dems are in control of the WH and Congress. SO you will get all the LEGISLATION that you want. Have fun being run by the GOV.!! GOV MOTORS, GOV HEALTH CARE, GOV BANKING, GOV SHIPPING, GOV RETIREMENT, GOV SUBSIDIES TO FARMERS, OIL COMPANIES, ALT ENERGY CO’s., ETC…..THE LIST NEVER ENDS. In 2020, IMHO, we won’t be talking about global warming, we will be talking about a bankrupt United States. As the saying goes, so goes California, so goes the U.S.

By the way, in California. We have hundreds of wind mills littering our hills that don’t work. They look ugly in our beautiful hills. Lots and lots of dead birds too!!!!!!!!

REPLY: CAPS never works well, it labels it as “SHOUTING”. Try editing and resubmitting. – Anthony
GOOD LUCK!!!

—

It is an image that comes quickly to mind:
Warm weather -> hotter climates -> drier and less rain -> deserts -> we all die.
Deserts -> less rain -> salt and bad soil -> we all die.

It is a natural image of doom and death: very carefully promoted.

Well then Joel, the scientific theory that climate change is simply a natural phenomenon (which is in fact the default theory) does indeed have several areas where there are puzzles…i.e., some data that doesn’t seem to agree with the theory. But, to say that the default theory of naturally-driven climate change is disproven because of this is silly. What it simply means is that one has to look more carefully at the data and the theory and try to understand what is going on.
Meanwhile, can we please put a halt to all of the alarmism, the hype, and the rush to demonize an entirely beneficial gas, passing legislation against it and spending $trillions? That’s all we ask. Is that so much?

The liberals/democrats/national socialists/extremists who DO control the world’s economies, energy production and food production and distribution DO say things with extremism, hatred, and filtered by rigorous censorship of ABCNNBCBS news and ALL the world’s publicity.

Yes, those (politcally-funded) organizations hold an extremist AGW view, but tens of thousands of their actual members do NOT hold the same view. The MEMBERS, however, have been locked out of the decision process and the voting – like at the IPCC and the World Congress – where trillions are at stake in taxes.

As for my “equivocal” statements, that is because I actually try to state things cautiously and carefully and not to say things with absolutely certainty that I don’t know for certain. That approach might not be so popular here but I do think it is the wisest one to take.

It is really so so simple, when the data and the theory don’t really fit it means it’s time to look more carefully at the data and the theory and try to understand what is going on. In the “old school” science, the theory was discarded if it did not fit the data, however in climate “science” data is alive! It is vital.

Mike,

There is nothing new and unique about this. Have you ever wondered why if the problems with AGW are so apparent to you, they are not to the National Academy of Sciences and the analogous societies in the other G8+5 nations, the AAAS, the councils of the AGU, the APS, the AMS, etc., etc.? Might it in fact be that they understand the scientific process better than you?!?

Oh, never mind, this couldn’t possibly be! It must be that they are all either deluded or part of a conspiracy!

1st sentence- Not sure
2nd sentence- Might imagine, might
3rd sentence- I think, I think
4th sentence- I believe
5th and final sentence- It may be

Is that the new Scientists Creed?

Mike

I think that EM Smith compared it to a food product. Today, instead of having a ham and cheese sandwich, the better choice is spam and velveeta. It tastes the same every time and it is so so yummy.

So Bruce man get with the program.
Mike

PS Also in chat rooms you can be any age you wish and also slim and good looking. Computers are really grand.

Please do explain “how science actually works”. I think I may have missed that lecture, and perhaps others here as well. We are your willing pupils. Thanks.

Well, Gavin’s point and mine in a nutshell is that any scientific theory will have at any given time several areas where there are puzzles…i.e., some data that doesn’t seem to agree with the theory and so forth. To say that the theory is disproven because of this is silly. What it means is that one has to look more carefully at the data and the theory and try to understand what is going on.

First of all, while more water vapor is a robust prediction of the models, I am not sure more cloud cover is. One might imagine as a first approximation that because the increase in water vapor is supposed to be such that relative humidity remains approximately constant, cloud cover might too. In fact, I think many of the models do predict some increase in high cloud cover; I think there is considerable variation in what they predict for low clouds.

Second of all, I believe that the prediction of drought is based on two things: One is shifts in the weather patterns. And, a second is that the greater warmth will lead to more rapid drying out of soils and such. Also, it may be that rainfall when it occurs is expected to be heavier but that it is expected to be more variable in occurrence.