Normally they get hysterical about running out of fresh water, but today the hysteria du jour is that freshwater availability is increasing.
More rain causes droughts. I get it.
————————————————————————————–
————————————————————————————–
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/
The usual crap about sea level. There hasn’t been any noticeable sea level rise in California over the last 140 years, and it certainly hasn’t altered the coastline.
No doubt Big Sur would drown if sea level rose a few inches.
There is a general air of desperate confusion coming from certain quarters.
How many times can they predict everything all at once and still be wrong ?
Quite a lot it seems.
More rain causes droughts. I get it.
Gosh, Steve, how come you omitted the explanation, which is right there in the same post?
Maybe you disagree with this. Fine. Say so, and say why. But simply leaving it out and making the guy sound like an idiot is pretty uncool.
I added your comment to the article
Thank you.
ChrisD
I think he added it because of your accusation he was trying to cover something up. To show you he wasn’t he added it to the post. So it seems you should feel you are proven wrong. IMO.
You are certainly free to think what you want. As for me, I think that it’s pretty obvious that he just did the right thing.
There will be Hurricanes, Monsoons, Typhoons, and other colorfully named weather, in areas in which such events are historically common and seasonal.
In the Arctic there will be frigid temps and snowstorms as well . ooooh scary.
California will be dry .
And this will be different than normal how ?
I am afraid that the omitted part was no more of a gem of insight and research
than any of the rest of it.
Jimash says:
October 7, 2010 at 1:20 am
California will be dry .
And this will be different than normal how ?
Maybe ChrisD is not from California and doesn’t know that farms are irrigated because it is so arid there.
What I know about California is sorta beside the point, Amino. Steve got it, though, as you can see.
ChrisD,
No, it is the point. You did not follow what I was responding to.
There still is no p[roof that what this man is asserting has not happened before. Without any such proof this mans assertion is more of global warming alarm over natural variation—in other words, crying out that the sky is falling because an acorn fell to the ground.
In related global warming inaccuracies:
Global warming claims species going extinct, but, scientists have discovered 345 new species:
200 new species in Papua New Guinea alone:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.1e1a9fce48fee772c40344d3f21d3cc9.31&show_article=1
145 in the Mekong River region:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101006/wl_asia_afp/wildlifeenvironmentseasiamekong
Global warming has a poor track record for finding evidence to prove its hypothesis.
I’m confused. What does the discovery of previously unknown species have to do with whether or not more species are going extinct? They aren’t new species, just ones that we didn’t know about before.
Their discovery doesn’t in any way provide evidence that the statements about extinctions are wrong. Maybe they are, but you can’t use this as evidence for that position.
ChrisD says:
October 7, 2010 at 2:26 am
I’m confused.
So that would explain some things.
ChrisD
Would you list the species that have gone extinct from global warming? Take as much room as you need.
ChrisD says:
October 7, 2010 at 2:26 am
They aren’t new species, just ones that we didn’t know about before.
You aren’t seeing the point:
New species are being discovered. the number of known species existing on earth is increasing, not decreasing.
ChrisD says:
October 7, 2010 at 2:26 am
They aren’t new species, just ones that we didn’t know about before.
Huh, rally. Who had claimed otherwise? Did you think someone did?
ChrisD says:
October 7, 2010 at 2:26 am
Their discovery doesn’t in any way provide evidence that the statements about extinctions are wrong. Maybe they are, but you can’t use this as evidence for that position.
I did not do that.
I will await your listing of species that have gone extinct from global warming. You say I claimed that species have not gone extinct because new species have been found. But I did not claim that. That is not what I said. And I would not have said that. You did not comprehend my point.
So now list the species that have gone extinct from global warming so that you show what I said is wrong.
I did not do that.
OK, so why did you put the discovery of previously unknown species in the same post as the business of “no evidence” for extinctions? In what way are these two things related?
the number of known species existing on earth is increasing, not decreasing.
The number of known species, not the number of species. What is the significance of this?
CD: I’m confused.
Amino: So that would explain some things.
Ha. I told my wife that someone would make this exact juvenile comment. I win.
ChrisD
You did not list the species that have gone extinct from global warming. You have done other things. Will you list them now?
ChrisD
You are seeing what you want to see. If you had wanted to see something different in what I said you could have done it.
ChrisD says:
October 7, 2010 at 3:14 am
I did not do that.
the business of “no evidence”
You misquoted me.
ChrisD
You had a problem with Steven Goddard leaving out something. But you yourself did that by leaving out things I said.
I responded to you within 1 minute of your last comment. You haven’t replied yet. Maybe you went to bed in that time.
I responded to you within 1 minute of your last comment. You haven’t replied yet
OK, this is the second time you’ve done this. I didn’t say anything last time, but let’s get this straight right now.
This is not a telephone conversation. These are blog comments. No one is required to sit around waiting for your resonses in order to respond immediately. Maybe I was doing dishes. Maybe I was walking the dog. Maybe I was watching TV. There is no obligation or even expectation that you’ll get an instant response. There is no obligation to post any response.
How long have you been doing this blog thing? Because this is very poor etiquette.
ChrisD
‘Global warming’ leaves the impression that life on earth is being decimated by manmade co2. Yet new life continues to be discovered. The world is even richer in life than was thought. There are no species proven to have gone extinct from ‘global warming’. So the earth is not being decimated by man.
This was my point. If you were inclined to you could have seen something along those lines in the comment.
ChrisD
I had assumed you were paying attention.
You are condescending.
ChrisD says:
October 7, 2010 at 3:54 am
There is no obligation to post any response.
Then why start a discussion?
You did not list the species that have gone extinct from global warming. You have done other things. Will you list them now?
No, sir. You made a claim about scientists having a “poor track record” in finding evidence to support their claims and mentioned the claim that numerous species have gone extinct. In support of this you offered nothing other than the observation that new previously unknown species have been discovered.
I challenged the logic of your post. The discovery of unknown species is completely unrelated to whether or not species are going extinct at an increasing rate.
I have not stated a position on the extinction rate. I simply want you to explain how the discovery of unknown species relates to your apparent claim that no evidence has been found for the increased rate of extinctions.
You do not get to post a claim and then, when challenged to support your claim, instead demand that I provide the evidence. That’s not how it works. You made the claim, you back it up.
ChrisD
No one is required to sit around waiting for your resonses in order to respond immediately.
My response came 1 minute later. Why distort things?
ChrisD
So your answer is an obfuscation.
ChrisD
‘Global warming’ leaves the impression that life on earth is being decimated by manmade co2. Yet new life continues to be discovered. The world is even richer in life than was thought. There are no species proven to have gone extinct from ‘global warming’. So the earth is not being decimated by man.
This was my point. If you were inclined to you could have seen something along those lines in the comment.
ChrisD says:
October 7, 2010 at 4:04 am
I challenged the logic of your post.
The logic from your paradigm. You saw what you wanted to see.
http://spriteland.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mens-height-illusion-copy.gif?w=150
ChrisD
At some point could you get to the point of what I said in the comment and stop the rabbit trails?
‘Global warming’ leaves the impression that life on earth is being decimated by manmade co2. Yet new life continues to be discovered.
These two things are completely unrelated. That was, and conmtinues to be, my point. The discovery of unknown species has nothing to do with extinctions.
There are no species proven to have gone extinct from ‘global warming’. So the earth is not being decimated by man. This was my point.
This may have been your point, but it is certainly not what you actually said.
My response came 1 minute later. Why distort things?
I’m not distorting anything. You seem to think that blog comments are interactive. They are not. This is not a chat room. People can post a comment and then leave. They do not have to await a reply, even for one minute. In many, many years of doing this I have never, ever encountered anyone who demands instant responses the way you do. Frankly, I think it is rather rude.
ChrisD says:
October 7, 2010 at 4:11 am
This may have been your point, but it is certainly not what you actually said.
Like I said, you saw what you wanted to see. You could have seen something different if you had wanted to. Not all people think alike.
What do you see here?
http://inkblottest.communityblog.com/files/2010/02/inkblot-test-plate.jpg
ChrisD
You did distort. You said that you did not want to sit around waiting for a reply. But my reply came immediately, withing 1 minute.
This is my last comment to you in this thread. Very little talk about what my comment was actually was done here. But you did spend time giving your opinions. Maybe doing that was more important to you than actually talking about issues at hand.
Like I said, you saw what you wanted to see.
No, Amino, I saw what was there. Here’s what you said:
1. Global warming claims species are going extinct.
2. Previously unknown species have been found (actually, you said “new” species, which is wrong, but I’ll give you that one)
3. Global warming has a poor track record for finding evidence to prove its hypothesis.
Point 2 is a non sequitur. It’s completely, totally, utterly unrelated to points 1 and 3. That is what I asked you to explain.
You say that the variety of known species is increasing, not decreasing. This is of academic interest only; what’s important is the variety of actual species, not the variety of known species. The discovery of unknown species has no effect on this. If the scientists are right–and you provided no evidence that they aren’t–then the variety of actual species is decreasing, not increasing.
You did distort. You said that you did not want to sit around waiting for a reply. But my reply came immediately, withing 1 minute.
One minute is sitting around. You don’t appear to understand that people don’t need to wait at all for a reply. They can post a comment, close the computer, and go to bed or watch TV or walk the dog or talk to their wives. There is no responsibility to sit here clicking refresh–not even for a minute. This is not a chat room.
That photo of Hwy. 1 is beautiful! 🙂
ChrisD, that’s because he is an idiot. This goes right into the alarmist trash bin. What’s uncool is this relentless spewing of lunatic alarmist wordspeak and double talk. Steve had it right the first time. More rain doesn’t equal drought. First they started on climate, telling us the temps are going to be x in a few years(they’ve been consistently wrong) when they can’t tell us what the temps are going to be next week/month/year. Now they’re predicting where the rain will fall in the next few decades? Regardless of the $10 words they use, its still blathering bs. More storms in the tropics? Puh-lease. Anyway, sorry for the rant, just a bit cranky. Steve, you’re doing great! To the rest, 10:10 good buddies!
HAHAHAHA, maybe I do need the Prozac!
Like I said, James, everyone is free to disagree with the scientist. But simply highlighting the apparent contradiction in what he said while omitting his explanation for it wasn’t kosher. I am glad to see that Steve apparently saw that this was true, and saddened to see that you apparently do not.
PS: Predicting weather and projecting climate are two almost completely different problems.
You just don’t get it, do you ChrisD.