California, a location with plants that are suited for deserts has a long history of droughts??? Say it ain't so.
Unbelievably, warmers will actually make this argument.
Baccheus,
The water shortage may be caused by the fact that there are FAR more Californians than the land can support. It becomes exceeedingly difficult to talk about drought problems dealing with CO2, when California has made so many other changes to the environment.
But if you want to use this as a sign of "climate change", then why do you not mention every time that any location has better crops than normal???
This is the idiocy of your STUPID PATHETIC UNSCIENCE. You want to talk about change, ... FINE. Give me a study that shows a statistically significant change to the climate accounting for multiplicity.
Fact is that you once said hurricanes, but the latest hurricane number do not warrant that claim. Now you are going to droughts and floods, sometime in the SAME LOCATION!!!
This is not science, this is scare-mongering BS.
If you think it is science, I have this amazing cure-all medication that I can sell to you for $500 a pill. This pill has been known to cure depression, help people stop smoking, cure headaches, cure acne, and even cure cancer. It will make you stronger, smarter and happier. You too can have this at the low price of $500 per pill.
http://listverse.com/2013/02/16/10-crazy-facts-about-the-placebo-effect/
Pegminer,
Why is someone who claims to be a scientist, so ignorant about the scientific method? You can have a drought and a flood in the same location over a long period of time. What you can't do is predict every possible scenario and claim it is science. That is what psychics do. You make very clear, very specific predictions when you are testing a hypothesis. You don't just say something is going to change. THINGS ARE ALWAS IN A STATE OF CHANGE!!!
If you want to know why I don't regard the crap models and BS "change" predictions as science, then read Karl Popper.
I create models. They serve as a best guess and that is it, until they have been tested.
BTW, evidently my arguments are always so strong that you need to create a strawman argument to even refute them. I have yet to see you address one of my arguments. It is always some twisted out of context crap.
For example, Note you said:
"It's funny that you call the New York Times a "liberal rag", and you call scientifically literate people "AGW Cultists", and yet you link to a paper started by a religious cult leader to advance his politics."
If I was using your method, you said
"the New York Times a "liberal rag", started by a religious cult leader to advance his politics."
JImZ,
The LA almanac??? Obviously a conservative rag. LOL. Those warmers crack me up.