Texas suffers the most severe drought in 100 years

[Chris]

The nine months from October 2010 through June of this year were the driest nine months on the books since the state began keeping records in 1895, according to the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), which oversees Central Texas' vast system of lakes, dams and rivers that produces water and power for urban and rural customers alike. The Austin area is 16 in. below normal for rainfall, according to LCRA, while counties to the east of the Texas capital have a 20-in. deficit.

The Highland Lakes were built in the 1930s and '40s, damming up sections of the Colorado River to help provide water and control flooding. This year the lakes are shrinking as the water retreats. Increased water use by a growing population and evaporation — no rain leads to warmer temperatures — means the lakes will continue to fall 1 ft. a week until October, LCRA predicts, stranding boat docks and revealing once flooded landmarks. In East Texas, the retreating waters of Lake Nacogdoches exposed debris from the 2003 crash of the space shuttle Columbia.

Texas' Relentless Drought May End Up Costing Billions - TIME

 

[wirebender]

The nine months from October 2010 through June of this year were the driest nine months on the books since the state began keeping records in 1895, according to the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), which oversees Central Texas' vast system of lakes, dams and rivers that produces water and power for urban and rural customers alike. The Austin area is 16 in. below normal for rainfall, according to LCRA, while counties to the east of the Texas capital have a 20-in. deficit.

The Highland Lakes were built in the 1930s and '40s, damming up sections of the Colorado River to help provide water and control flooding. This year the lakes are shrinking as the water retreats. Increased water use by a growing population and evaporation — no rain leads to warmer temperatures — means the lakes will continue to fall 1 ft. a week until October, LCRA predicts, stranding boat docks and revealing once flooded landmarks. In East Texas, the retreating waters of Lake Nacogdoches exposed debris from the 2003 crash of the space shuttle Columbia.

Texas' Relentless Drought May End Up Costing Billions - TIME

Again with the hand wringing. What is it with you Chris? Do you believe this drought in Texas is outside the boundries of natural variability? Do you beleve it even approaches the borders? It is dry in the southwest, imagine that? You cut and paste this propaganda piece as if drought in the southwest were news.

And WOW!! Your guys use a time reference of 100 years as if that were any indicator of what is normal in the southwest. Here Chris, take a look at a slightly larger picture. Lets look at the past 1000 years or so. How about something from the national academy of science?

A 1,200-year perspective of 21st century drought in southwestern North America

Clip: "The medieval period was characterized by widespread and regionally severe, sustained drought in western North America. Proxy data documenting drought indicate centuries-long periods of increased aridity across the central and western U.S...The recent drought, thus far, pales hydrologically in comparison... Spatially, the mid-12th century drought covers all of the western U.S. and northern Mexico...whereas the 21st century drought has not impacted parts of the Pacific Northwest...The 21st century drought has lasted about a decade so far, whereas the 12th century medieval drought persisted with an extent and severity...for two decades, 1140–1159 [AD]...In both instrumental and paleoclimatic records, periods of sustained drought in the Southwest have often been concurrent with elevated temperatures. The warmest such episode, in the mid-12th century, was more extensive and much more persistent than any modern drought experienced to date..." [Connie A. Woodhouse, David M. Meko, Glen M. MacDonald, Dave W. Stahle, Edward R. Cooke 2009: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

Geez Chris, take a pill already. When you see something happening that is outside the boundries of natural variability, or even approaching the borders, feel free to rock back and forth and wring your hands to your heart's content. But guy, all this fretting over something that is perfectly natural and far, far, far within the boundries of natural variability just makes you look silly. If some more peer reviewed papers documenting the normalcy of dought in the southwest would ease your mind, just ask. There is plenty more.

In light of your apparent constant state of low grade panic over things that hardly deserve a second thought, much less anxiety, perhaps the irony of your choice of avatar escapes you. Sean Connery, perhaps the coolest head to ever say "My name is Bond, James Bond". Really guy, do you see James Bond fretting and wringing his hands over a drought in the southwest that doesn't even come close to previous droughts in that area?

Here are a couple of possible alternatives that more closely match the content of your posts. Here is enough for you and some of the other more notable hand wringers that populate the board.

 

[RollingThunder]

Now global warming is accelerating and intensifying the trend towards drought conditions. As has been predicted by climate scientists for some time now.

You would be laughable if you weren't so damned pathetic. A loudmouthed blowhard whose repertoire constists of little more than name calling, rediculously predictable cut and paste, and bullying that smacks of a fat kids fantasy of being the toughest kid on the playground.

Accelerating global warming? I am laughing great donkey laughs HE HAW HEEE HAAAAW in your idiot face. Accelarted warming? What a putz. The fact is that globally, the warming is over and has been for quite some time. Every where you look, it seems that sensors are being caught with a warming bias and most of the places your priests claim to be warming the quickest have no sensors at all.

The hoax is falling down around your ears thunder. It is all falling apart and I am sure that you find it all terribly disturbing as you are emotionally invested at such a deep level. But that is the way it goes when you are a dupe, unable to think for himself. Unscrupulous people will take advantage of you and use you for whatever purpose they see fit.

Accelearating warming...what a laugh. If you had a lick of common sense, you might catch on to the fact that the time frame your priests reference as "evidence" for their prophesies keeps getting shorter and shorter. By next year, the claim will be that this place or that place has had the hottest temperature in the past month, or week, or since 8:00 in the AM.

Your priests predict drought and increased rainfall. Warming and cooling. Dry winters and more snow. Your hypotheses is unfalsifiable and therefore invalid.

Or is it falsifiable? Tell me thunder, what would falsify the AGW hypothesis? My bet is that you have no answer because to answer is to falsify it.

Posts like this one of yours just reveal what a totally brainwashed delusional moron you are, wired&bent.

Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'
The Independent
(excerpts)

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed. They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s. The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

On the ground, a study by the University of California's National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.

Further reading: Go to pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700609104

 

[wirebender]

Posts like this one of yours just reveal what a totally brainwashed delusional moron you are, wired&bent.

No answer to a simple question thunder? Not surprising at all, but still....

What might falsify the hypothesis of AGW?

What is presently happening in the climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability.

Surely you don't need to rush out and cut and paste to answer such easy questions thunder. People are waiting for your answer.

By the way, here is how the predictions match up to the grossly exagerated surface temperature record. As you can see, the grossly manipulated "reality" isn't even close to the predictions.

The US is cooling, europe is cooling and the southern hemisphere is cooling. Exactly where is this warming you cliam?

 

[skookerasbil]

Strong LaNina always causes severe drought in Texas.............

Texas drought likely into 2012 as La Niña re-emerges

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Mr.Nick]

Apparently the climate nuts believe 100 years is a long time.

Funny how modern humans are nearly 50,000 years old, we began to document about 5,000-7,000 years ago but have only been keeping weather records for the past 150 or so years.

Oh then we have the geological record of the earth which supports "climate change" is a natural occurrence.

 

[RollingThunder]

Posts like this one of yours just reveal what a totally brainwashed delusional moron you are, wired&bent.

No answer to a simple question thunder? Not surprising at all, but still....

What might falsify the hypothesis of AGW?

In science a properly constructed hypothesis can be falsified if experimental evidence does not agree with its predictions. What you're calling "the hypothesis of AGW" (it's actually a well established scientific theory at this point) gives several predictions:

1. A significant rise in average temperature means a rise in temperature that is statistically discernible from the baseline with a confidence > .95. The hypothesis is not falsified by the temperature data.

2. Human use of fossil fuels is casually related to climate change. This part is easily tested by measuring the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The hypothesis is not falsified by the isotopic data.

3. Measurements of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere were predicted to show that radiation in the CO2 spectral bands has diminished as atmospheric CO2 levels have increased and this has indeed been observed. The hypothesis is not falsified by the satellite data.

4. Measurements of incoming solar radiation levels would have to show an increase in the amount of energy the Earth is getting from the sun to account for the observed warming and falsify the "AGW hypothesis". Actual measurements show, if anything, a slight decrease in solar gain over the last decade or so. The hypothesis is not falsified by the satellite data.

5. The temperature should rise between 2 and 5 degrees (K) per century. The observed rate of increase is consistent with the hypothesis. If the rate of increase were significantly lower in the next 3 decades, the hypothesis could be falsified.

6. The hypothesis can be falsified by showing that there are not significant disruptions to natural systems. If it can be shown that a majority of the earth's ecosystems have the same types of species in the same abundance as a pre-industrial reference period then there is no effect and the hypothesis is falsified. The evidence is that significant changes to ecosystems have already happened. The hypothesis is not falsified.

The "AGW hypothesis" does not make any predictions that cannot be tested and therefore is a good hypothesis.

AGW deniers have been totally unable to come up with any other scientifically valid explanations or 'hypotheses" that can account for the evidence. The science whores stooging for the fossil fuel industry did come up with some supposed alternative explanations but they were all immediately falsified by the actual physical evidence or the laws of physics. You have no viable alternative hypothesis that can explain what has been happening to temperatures and climate patterns.
.

What is presently happening in the climate that is outside the boundries(sic) of natural variability.

- Arctic sea ice minimum is decreasing 11.5% per decade.

- Sea levels are rising at a current rate of about 3.27mm per year and accelerating.

- Global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees in the last 130 years.

- Greenland is losing about 100 billion tons of ice mass per year.

- Many places have less snowpack than they used to, and this snowpack is melting earlier, threatening water supplies for human consumption and agriculture worldwide.

- Most of the glaciers all over the world have been melting for at least the last 50 years, and the rate of melting is speeding up. Many glaciers in many parts of the world, including both Glacier National Park and Alaska here in America, have shrunk dramatically or in some cases, disappeared entirely.

- Permafrost all across the Arctic in Alaska, Canada and Siberia is melting rapidly.

- 2010 was the third consecutive year—and the third time in recorded history—that both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.

- Overall, the world's oceans are warmer now than at any point in at least the last 50 years and probably much longer. The change is most obvious in the top layer of the ocean, which has grown much warmer since the late 1800s. This top layer is now getting warmer at a rate of 0.2°F per decade.

- The amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans has increased all over the world over the last few decades, and so has ocean acidity, posing grave threats to ocean ecology and the food chain.

- Since the 1970s, droughts have become longer and more extreme worldwide, particularly in the tropics and subtropics.

- Over the past 20 years, hurricanes and other tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean have become stronger.

- Since the 1980s, the United States has also experienced more intense single-day storms that are dumping a lot more rain or snow than usual.

- The global warming induced rise in ocean temperatures has caused more water to evaporate, raising water vapor levels in the atmosphere by about 4% and, as a result, the world is, on average, already getting more precipitation now than it did 100 years ago: 6 percent more in the United States and nearly 2 percent more worldwide.

Surely you don't need to rush out and cut and paste to answer such easy questions thunder. People are waiting for your answer.

What you seem to disdain as "cut and paste" is actually just an insertion of actual scientific evidence into the debate to support my contentions. You're obviously unhappy with the inclusion of actual evidence because it domolishes your delusions and you're also obviously envious because you are unable to cite any actual scientific evidence to support your braindead delusions and denier cult myths.

By the way, here is how the predictions match up to the grossly exagerated(sic) surface temperature record. As you can see, the grossly manipulated "reality" isn't even close to the predictions.

LOLOLOL......you denier cult nutjobs and your delusions are a hoot.....you are sooooo gullible and easily deceived.....

Misrepresentations of Hansen's Projections
(excerpts)

The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted....The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure."

This is an astonishingly false statement to make, particularly before the US Congress. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear, which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent."

Compare the figure Michaels produced to make this claim (Figure 1) to the corresponding figure taken directly out of Hansen's 1988 study (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Pat Michaels' presentation of Hansen's projections before US Congress

Figure 2: Projected global surface air temperature changes in Scenarios A, B, and C (Hansen 1988)

Notice that Michaels erased Hansen's Scenarios B and C despite the fact that as discussed above, Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth, which did not occur. In other words, to support the claim that Hansen's projections were "an astounding failure," Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c015390615665970b-pi

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0154346132dc970c-400wi

The US is cooling, europe is cooling and the southern hemisphere is cooling. Exactly where is this warming you cliam?

The bullcrap from your denier cult blogs is as phony as the rest of your denier cult myths and fantasies. The actual global temperature record show unmistakable warming.

 

[wirebender]

In science a properly constructed hypothesis can be falsified if experimental evidence does not agree with its predictions. What you're calling "the hypothesis of AGW" (it's actually a well established scientific theory at this point) gives several predictions:

Sorry guy, it is, at best, a piss poor hypothesis. To date, there is not a shred of evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, and the changing climate. What you guys just don't seem to get is that correlation does not equal causation; especially when the data you are "corelating" falls well within natural variation.

1. A significant rise in average temperature means a rise in temperature that is statistically discernible from the baseline with a confidence > .95. The hypothesis is not falsified by the temperature data.

Of course it is. CO2 keeps increasing but the rate of warming has not. Your hypothesis fails right there, but we can continue.

2. Human use of fossil fuels is casually related to climate change. This part is easily tested by measuring the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The hypothesis is not falsified by the isotopic data.

To date, there is not a shred of evidence to prove that claim. In fact, this paper is soon to go into publication which precisely falsifies AGW on isotropic data.

Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources

3. Measurements of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere were predicted to show that radiation in the CO2 spectral bands has diminished as atmospheric CO2 levels have increased and this has indeed been observed. The hypothesis is not falsified by the satellite data.

Been through this one already. I was able to show initial and final data for comparison and the outgoing long wave radiation had clearly not changed although atmospheric CO2 has increased. Again, this alone falsifies your hypothesis.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3790746-post85.html

4. Measurements of incoming solar radiation levels would have to show an increase in the amount of energy the Earth is getting from the sun to account for the observed warming and falsify the "AGW hypothesis". Actual measurements show, if anything, a slight decrease in solar gain over the last decade or so. The hypothesis is not falsified by the satellite data.

Sorry, but again, there is no evidence to support that claim.

5. The temperature should rise between 2 and 5 degrees (K) per century. The observed rate of increase is consistent with the hypothesis. If the rate of increase were significantly lower in the next 3 decades, the hypothesis could be falsified.

Based on what? The terribly flawed and manipulated surface record? Satellite temps don't agree with that claim at all. The rate of change is signifigantly lower in the past decade and a half with cooling expected over the next 50 years or so. Again, your hypothesis is falsified.

6. The hypothesis can be falsified by showing that there are not significant disruptions to natural systems. If it can be shown that a majority of the earth's ecosystems have the same types of species in the same abundance as a pre-industrial reference period then there is no effect and the hypothesis is falsified. The evidence is that significant changes to ecosystems have already happened. The hypothesis is not falsified.

On that one, you have falsified the hypothesis yourself. In spite of claims of major extinctions, there are no extinctions due to climate.

Laughing at you thunder. Still laughing at you for being such a dupe. Keep waving those pom poms. Sis boom ba.

 

[RollingThunder]

In science a properly constructed hypothesis can be falsified if experimental evidence does not agree with its predictions. What you're calling "the hypothesis of AGW" (it's actually a well established scientific theory at this point) gives several predictions:

Sorry guy, it is, at best, a piss poor hypothesis. To date, there is not a shred of evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, and the changing climate. What you guys just don't seem to get is that correlation does not equal causation; especially when the data you are "corelating" falls well within natural variation.

1. A significant rise in average temperature means a rise in temperature that is statistically discernible from the baseline with a confidence > .95. The hypothesis is not falsified by the temperature data.

Of course it is. CO2 keeps increasing but the rate of warming has not. Your hypothesis fails right there, but we can continue.




To date, there is not a shred of evidence to prove that claim. In fact, this paper is soon to go into publication which precisely falsifies AGW on isotropic data.

Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources




Been through this one already. I was able to show initial and final data for comparison and the outgoing long wave radiation had clearly not changed although atmospheric CO2 has increased. Again, this alone falsifies your hypothesis.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3790746-post85.html



Sorry, but again, there is no evidence to support that claim.

5. The temperature should rise between 2 and 5 degrees (K) per century. The observed rate of increase is consistent with the hypothesis. If the rate of increase were significantly lower in the next 3 decades, the hypothesis could be falsified.

Based on what? The terribly flawed and manipulated surface record? Satellite temps don't agree with that claim at all. The rate of change is signifigantly lower in the past decade and a half with cooling expected over the next 50 years or so. Again, your hypothesis is falsified.

6. The hypothesis can be falsified by showing that there are not significant disruptions to natural systems. If it can be shown that a majority of the earth's ecosystems have the same types of species in the same abundance as a pre-industrial reference period then there is no effect and the hypothesis is falsified. The evidence is that significant changes to ecosystems have already happened. The hypothesis is not falsified.

On that one, you have falsified the hypothesis yourself. In spite of claims of major extinctions, there are no extinctions due to climate.

Laughing at you thunder. Still laughing at you for being such a dupe. Keep waving those pom poms. Sis boom ba.

Your objections to the evidence are just more of your delusions and misinformation and are backed up by nothing but your ignorance.

 

[wirebender]

Your objections to the evidence are just more of your delusions and misinformation and are backed up by nothing but your ignorance.

Actually thunder, my position is backed up by math that I performed, in public, right here on this board. To date, none of you know nothings has done more than whine that you don't like the bottom line.

When you can prove your point as evidenced by your own work instead of the cut and paste that you are limited to, let me know. Till then, I'm laughing at you. Laughing real loud.

 

[manifold]

Serves them right for not praying hard enough for rain.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your objections to the evidence are just more of your delusions and misinformation and are backed up by nothing but your ignorance.

Actually thunder, my position is backed up by math that I performed, in public, right here on this board. To date, none of you know nothings has done more than whine that you don't like the bottom line.

When you can prove your point as evidenced by your own work instead of the cut and paste that you are limited to, let me know. Till then, I'm laughing at you. Laughing real loud.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......your delusions are hilarious, wiredup&bentover. Your position is backed up only by your very own mathematical delusions that actual scientists laugh at. All of your idiotic nonsense has been repeatedly debunked but you're too severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect to be able to see that.

It is only deluded and poorly educated idiots like you who imagine that you understand a complex field of science better than the professional scientists who study it all their lives, so no, dimwit, I'm not going to try to "prove my point by my own work" when I'm not a climate scientist but I am intelligent enough to accept the testimony of the world's experts, particularly if they are as nearly unanimous as climate scientists are about AGW. I will certainly continue to post the actual scientific research from real climate scientists that debunks your psuedo-science and misinformed drivel.

If you actually had anything valid to say, you wouldn't be saying it here. You'd be publishing your data and conclusions in a peer-reviewed science journal. But in fact, your retarded pseudo-science and bad math would never get close to being published. Laughed at a lot by the journal editors, I'm sure, but no chance of passing peer review. But as usual with retards like you who have a touch of megalomania, you're convinced that you're right and the world scientific community is wrong. You and your fellow denier cultists are the new 'flat earthers".


***

 

[uscitizen]

Serves them right for not praying hard enough for rain.

they pray crooked and about flooded a lot of the rest of us out.

 

[wirebender]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......your delusions are hilarious, wiredup&bentover. Your position is backed up only by your very own mathematical delusions that actual scientists laugh at. All of your idiotic nonsense has been repeatedly debunked but you're too severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect to be able to see that.

And you remain unable to prove a point on your own. The fact is that you can't do the math so, like old rocks and konradv, hold your position as an article of faith. I am laughing at you again thunder. Laughing out loud.

But hey, if you want to try and prove me wrong, by all means go visit wiki and bring what you learn to the appropriate thread. My bet is that it takes about 1 minute to demonstrate beyond doubt, that you can't do the math and, in reality, have no idea whether the pap being fed to you by your priests is right or not.

If you actually had anything valid to say, you wouldn't be saying it here.

As opposed to you who actually has nothing to say and are simply a cut and paste drone? At least I can speak to the topic in my own words thunder and if mathematics is required to make a point, I can do them. Cut and paste is all you have and all you will ever have. That, and the impotent name calling of a fat kid who dreams of being the toughest kid on the playground. I am still laughing at you thunder. Laughing hard at your impotence.

 

[editec]

I guess the real issue here is what happens if this trend of drying continues.

Can't we can put aside the issue of Global warming (and its cause if it is in fact really happening) and discuss what we ought to be able to agree on?

Does anyone think there is no drought?

Does anyone think the drought is not a problem?

Instead of playing the blame game, perhaps we ought to be pondering how this nation is going to fare if this trend continues.

Somebody mentioned building DESALINIZATION plants.

It strikes me that's the kind of issue that ought to be of interest, rather than continuing this goofy battle about global warming.

I mean assuming we really care about this nation, at least.

 

[gslack]

I guess the real issue here is what happens if this trend of drying continues.

Can't we can put aside the issue of Global warming (and its cause if it is in fact really happening) and discuss what we ought to be able to agree on?

Does anyone think there is no drought?

Does anyone think the drought is not a problem?

Instead of playing the blame game, perhaps we ought to be pondering how this nation is going to fare if this trend continues.

Somebody mentioned building DESALINIZATION plants.

It strikes me that's the kind of issue that ought to be of interest, rather than continuing this goofy battle about global warming.

I mean assuming we really care about this nation, at least.

Desalinization plants in response to a drought when we have many more states with more than enough water to share is unnecessary I would think.

 

[wirebender]

I guess the real issue here is what happens if this trend of drying continues.

What happens is people adapt, or they don't adapt. Asking what to do about a drought is akin to asking what to do about to much rain. Can we stop the rain if there is to much of it? Of course not and neither can we bring rain when there is to little. If we had nearly the effect on climate that believers think we do, don't you think we could at least do something about one of the basics like precipitation?

Does anyone think there is no drought?

Is drought something new in the southwest? Is the present drought unprecedented? Is its extent and duration anything near the limit of natural variability?

Does anyone think the drought is not a problem?

What do you recommend that we do about it? Other parts of the nation are getting to much rain? What should we do about that? What are we actually able to "do" about either? We are along for the ride and we either adapt or we do not.

Instead of playing the blame game, perhaps we ought to be pondering how this nation is going to fare if this trend continues.

Easy. We adapt or we do not. Rather than squandering the billions that are presently being wasted by climate pseudoscience, channel that money into engineering technology that will make the adaptation to whatever is coming easier and less traumatic.

Somebody mentioned building DESALINIZATION plants.

Something that could be done with money presently being wasted on climate pseudoscience.

It strikes me that's the kind of issue that ought to be of interest, rather than continuing this goofy battle about global warming.

The battle isn't about global warming. Global warming is merely the pretense. The battle is over whether or not individuals get to continue to live as fee people or whether they must bow to, and serve the state. The battle is over capitalism vs the various forms of socialism.

I mean assuming we really care about this nation, at least.

There are those who care about it and those who are driven to see the way of life we enjoy here ended. The arguments about global warming are merely arguments to show the specious nature of the tale concocted this time in the ongoing effort to end capitalism. There is no chance that the money presently being wasted on climate pseudoscience will ever be channeled into something constructive like engineering progects and think tanks directed towards technology to make adaptations to whatever sort of clmate the earth provides because to do so would involve productive and profitable work aimed at a specific goal. That is an anathema to warmists. Furthering technology and making a profit are exactly opposed to their goals.

 

[wirebender]

Desalinization plants in response to a drought when we have many more states with more than enough water to share is unnecessary I would think.

The question comes down to the most secure supply of water. While some places may have too much water, is that an ongoing problem or a variable problem. If it is variable, it isn't really an answer to the neverending prospect of drought due to the very nature of the climate of the southwest. Even when not in a drought, the threat of drought exists.

I would gladly see money diverted away from climate pseudoscience put into desalinization plants and pipelines to agricultural areas in the southwest. Hell, if we diverted all of the money presently going into climate pseudoscience into a great factory that made nothing but sockmonkeys, the money would be put to better use than it is now.

 

[konradv]

Desalinization plants in response to a drought when we have many more states with more than enough water to share is unnecessary I would think.

The question comes down to the most secure supply of water. While some places may have too much water, is that an ongoing problem or a variable problem. If it is variable, it isn't really an answer to the neverending prospect of drought due to the very nature of the climate of the southwest. Even when not in a drought, the threat of drought exists.

I would gladly see money diverted away from climate pseudoscience put into desalinization plants and pipelines to agricultural areas in the southwest. Hell, if we diverted all of the money presently going into climate pseudoscience into a great factory that made nothing but sockmonkeys, the money would be put to better use than it is now.

Plus, you'd have a little brother!!!