This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

200 Years Of Scorchitude: Professor Warns California To Brace For A "Mega-Drought"

Tyler Durden's picture


Two years into California's drought and locals are repeating (mantra-like) "we've never seen anything like it." They are right, of course, since this is the worst period of rainlessness since records began... but if Cal Berkeley professor Lynn Ingram is correct, they ain't seen nothing yet. The paleoclimatologist fears, if very long-run history repeats, California should brace itself for a mega drought, as National Geographic reports, a drought that could last for 200 years or more.


Via National Geographic,

California is experiencing its worst drought since record-keeping began in the mid 19th century, and scientists say this may be just the beginning. B. Lynn Ingram, a paleoclimatologist at the University of California at Berkeley, thinks that California needs to brace itself for a megadrought—one that could last for 200 years or more.


As a paleoclimatologist, Ingram takes the long view, examining tree rings and microorganisms in ocean sediment to identify temperatures and dry periods of the past millennium. Her work suggests that droughts are nothing new to California.




"During the medieval period, there was over a century of drought in the Southwest and California. The past repeats itself," says Ingram, who is co-author of The West Without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climate Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow. Indeed, Ingram believes the 20th century may have been a wet anomaly.




Unfortunately, she notes, most of the state's infrastructure was designed and built during the 20th century, when the climate was unusually wet compared to previous centuries. That hasn't set water management on the right course to deal with long periods of dryness in the future.


Given that California is one of the largest agricultural regions in the world, the effects of any drought, never mind one that could last for centuries, are huge. About 80 percent of California's freshwater supply is used for agriculture. The cost of fruits and vegetables could soar, says Cantu. "There will be cataclysmic impacts."



So what is causing the current drought?

Ingram and other paleoclimatologists have correlated several historic megadroughts with a shift in the surface temperature of the Pacific Ocean that occurs every 20 to 30 years—something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO is similar to an El Nino event except it lasts for decades—as its name implies—whereas an El Nino event lasts 6 to 18 months. Cool phases of the PDO result in less precipitation because cooler sea temperatures bump the jet stream north, which in turn pushes off storms that would otherwise provide rain and snow to California. Ingram says entire lakes dried up in California following a cool phase of the PDO several thousand years ago. Warm phases have been linked to numerous storms along the California coast.

"We have been in a fairly cold phase of PDO since the early 2000s," says Brian Fuchs, a climatologist at the National Drought Mitigation Center, "so the drought we are seeing now makes sense."


That said, scientists caution against pinning the current drought on the PDO alone. Certainly ocean temperatures, wind, and the weather pattern in the Pacific have contributed to the drought, says Nate Mantua, a professor in the department of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, where the PDO pattern was first discovered and named. "But it's more nuanced than saying the PDO did this." After all, as its name suggests, the PDO is decades in the making.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:23 | 4446563 Droel
Droel's picture

All this green energy really fukked up the weather pattern.   Fire up those coal plants!


Yeah My first 1st.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:37 | 4446599 monkeyshine
monkeyshine's picture

They care more about fiat money than water

Restarting Desalination Plant Would Cost $20 Million
Santa Barbara Plant in Mothballs, Not Considered for Use in Current Drought


Santa Barbara’s Desalination Plant Is No Quick Fix for Drought Conditions


Energy Makes Up Half of Desalination Plant Costs: Study


In California, What Price Water?

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:52 | 4446660 max2205
max2205's picture

Global boiling tax coming your way

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:05 | 4446700 National Blessing
National Blessing's picture

OK.  OK.  Blah, blah, blah.  The sky is falling.  We've heard it all before.  Blockheads.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:13 | 4446721 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Tyler, most of your sources are good. You are citing someone from the epicenter of libtardism, UC Berkley. No credibility whatsoever.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:36 | 4446785 boogerbently
boogerbently's picture

Isn't that the guy that predicted the "Mayan Apocalypse" ?

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:57 | 4446845 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

What does the "Father of the Internet" Al Gore have to say about this? 

And how are the whores of D.C. and the bankster tribe going to make a buck off of it?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:18 | 4446898 Atlas_shrugging
Atlas_shrugging's picture

But the S&P was up over 30% last year so everything must be OK, right?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:27 | 4446915 MiguelitoRaton
MiguelitoRaton's picture

The PDO is a long trend that can be interupted by wet from El Nino or La Nina and it appears we may have an El Nino forming by around August. We'll see...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 01:26 | 4447026 CheapBastard
CheapBastard's picture

Drought + Fuki = they'll all move to Austin & Phoenix

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 04:28 | 4447220 balolalo
balolalo's picture

For you retards who do not believe in what climate scientists are warning us about, STFU, lie down, and stop making noise like a toddler

It must be MAGIC (or God) that: makes your car move, turns your iphone on, makes your medicine if your sick, allows planes to fly, and delivers the food to the market.

You probably think water is blue.

Let grown ups handle this before you hurt more people by distracting them and taking them back into the dark ages.

Science ain't perfect but you sure do trust it with your life. I'll take a true scientist any day over any hack one of you climate change deniers can conjure up.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 05:41 | 4447268 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 It must be MAGIC (or God) that: makes your car move, turns your iphone on, makes your medicine if your sick, allows planes to fly, and delivers the food to the market.

You know why the alarmists are always trying to equate successful areas of science - like physics & medicine - and the utterly unreliable predictions made by climate 'science'?

Hey, I guess I've answered my own question!

Get it into your head, morons: we trust the predictions of physicists not because we trust physicists, but because we trust physics.

When climate scientists can make predictions with respect to temperatures with the same ability that physicists can predict the movement of objects in orbit, we'll accord them the same respect.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:39 | 4447408 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

the earth was once locked in an ice age

but the climate changed

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:12 | 4447471 The Black Bishop
The Black Bishop's picture

Hell yeah! I saw that in the Ice Age movies! Great educational flicks!




There wouldnt be any "climate" scientists if there wasnt money to be made! Mother nature takes a huge dump on the so called Climate Models every time she opens up a volcano for a few days. CO2 as polution is the most garbage argument to date. If these people were serious about climate they would strangle Japan and force a solution to Fukushima no matter the cost. And why isnt the food industry a bigger part of the environmental debate? Not just for people but for animals. The shit we feed the animals comes back to us. And GMO's, dont get me started on those. The entire debate and "science" is just one huge steaming pile of manure.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:08 | 4447929 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

Southern California is s desert. What do folks expect in a desert. Klimate Kooks would have us believe its suddenly turning into a desert because of us screwing up the climate. Nuts I tell you...nuts. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 13:22 | 4448607 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Ok get ready for this everyone, about to blow your feeble little minds... climate modelling is based on......physics!! Oh snap!

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 05:34 | 4451728 BigJim
BigJim's picture

James Cole strikes again!

Ok get ready for this everyone, about to blow your feeble little minds... climate modelling is based on......physics!! Oh snap!

If I were to predict that a feather were to fall with an acceleration of 9.80665 m/s2, that prediction would be 'based' on physics.

But it would still be wrong. Because it would fail to take into account drag... just as climate models fail to take into account whatever it is that stops them being even remotely reliable.

Try again, James.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:31 | 4452269 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I've heard of strawmen, but this is the first featherman I have seen...

Right out of a textbook about argumentative fallacies...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:29 | 4447509 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Years back, I worked on a climate-related project as a software contractor for the EPA.  I have firsthand knowledge of the datasets.  What struck me was how inconsistent to data was.  Worse than that was how they massaged the models--you could get practically any outcome you desired from those models just by tweaking a couple of factors here or there.  It was very eye-opening.  

The EPA should stick to controlling pollution and climate scienctists should settle down and stop letting leftist politicians use their research to push an agenda of control on the population.  Climate change theory in its present form is just a new, difficult to argue against justification for Communism.  There, I said it.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:32 | 4452271 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Making shit up...

Bad form...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:24 | 4448291 xavi1951
xavi1951's picture

I love the way you throw around the term "climate scientists'.  Al Gore is NOT a scientist.  A rocket engineer from NASA is NOT a climate anything.  There are only a handful of Climatologists in the entire world, and guess what, they don't agree.  The science is NOT in.  Al Gore has made millions by peddling fear and is set up to make millions selling carbon $$$ on the market.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:35 | 4452285 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Funny you say that, the Schmitt NASA letter was exactly that, a bunch of non-climatologist attempting to muzzle GISS...

BTW, there are a few thousand and for the most part they all agree about the AGW....

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:05 | 4447361 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

Genuine science is demonstrably verifiable. It is repeatable, it is proof, and any other scientist can do the experiment and obtain the same result. This is not true by the primary advocates of AGW. Their models have failed so this means that they are wrong. Period.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:22 | 4447495 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Making shit up does not make it so...

If you don't think we can model the global temperature you have not been watching closely

Be sure to follow the links to get really educated...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:58 | 4447598 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

The earth as a whole is not a system in thermodynamic equilibirum. There is no such thing as a 'global temperature'. An average calculated of many different local temperatures is not itself a temperature; it is in and of itself a practically meaningless statistic.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:18 | 4447977 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are right, it is slowly warming up...

Clearly you have never heard of the Stefan Boltzmann law... And just because you are ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is...

By the way, how is an average of temperatures not a temperature?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:30 | 4447511 aerojet
aerojet's picture

And genuine science doesn't have a political affiliation.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:43 | 4447551 TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

But Flakmeister does.  And here he is to save the world with climate BS.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:53 | 4447589 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Verifiable? I believe a little man by the name of Karl Popper once wrote a book on that contention ...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:19 | 4447983 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And what you don;t understand about Popper is in that book...


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:30 | 4447508 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The religion of science can be quite hilarious. You shout to the heavens about your successes, but bury the failures. You claim godlike intelligence and ability, when most are just simple autistics. It did not require science to see a rainbow and infer refraction or to scoop water in a bucket and infer reflection. It was a scientist (philosopher, alchemist) whom figured out how to demonstrate it. It took a scientist to test for and find waves and particles- the unseen world. 

It was a caveman that figured out the wheel. It was early man that figured out propulsion using force could be useful. Throwing rocks, teaming horses, it was an engineer that figured out cars. Watching birds fly or fish swim encouradged engineers to seek formulas for lift. You see, science wants to seek claim to everything good. 

However, science is equally blind to its shortcomings. Pharmacology is classic. Creating medicines with limited knowledge of how a body functions is dangerous and has proven so. Worse yet, placing financial motivations ahead of safety is slow murder for the patient. Doctors are infants in the art of healing. This is because science requires a monopoly, much like religion- it must be believed- like the early "scientists" whom felt the Earth was flat or X-rays would cure cancer or smoking was harmless. 

It is science that has polluted the water, air and land. It is science that has created military destruction. It is science that has encouraged global population densities that are destroying the environment. It is science that has created the NSA, the drone, the robotic soldier and MKUltra. 

So, no, I use science that is useful, but I abhor most of it. I recognize the convenience made possible by it, but wonder why man is so foolish to embrace that which is deadly and destructive. Then I remember, the danger when priests are put in charge of religion and it all becomes clearer.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:32 | 4447519 aerojet
aerojet's picture

You say a lot, but I think you're an idiot.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:44 | 4447558 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

I guess I'm enough of an idiot to confound you.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 16:29 | 4449485 Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

You are confounding religion with science. True science is never blind to its own shortcomings. In fact, that's fairly decent summary of what the scientific method actually is: the search for evidence that is not consistent with the null hypothesis. If you find evidence that can't be explained by it, you reject it. If all the evidence is consistent it, well, it can serve as the most likely scenario until (if) some evidence can be found to contradict it.


Fanatics search for evidence that supports their hypothesis, and bury that which contradicts it. By defition, these are not scientists. 


I reject your BS as I reject fanatics claim to be "scientists." Fanatics created all that shit, not scientists. Aim better....

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 18:26 | 4450016 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

It is the phrase "true science" that shows the alter you worship at. Just as every religion argues that it is the true interpretation. You reject my arguments, but you cannot argue against them? Then call me the fanatic? 

You're as dumb as a bag of hammers. Good luck with that.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 08:36 | 4451883 Ar-Pharazôn
Ar-Pharazôn's picture

it's called scientific method. rince and repeat. rince and repeat ad nauseam.


sir you're the only dumbass here.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:24 | 4451992 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

A method that is a complete failure. It is incapable of measuring the consequences of action nor is it free from bribery and coercion.. Another moron, without an argument. Unfortunately, it points out the deficiency with scientists in general- sociopathy.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:59 | 4447891 Tough Mudder
Tough Mudder's picture

The problem with the "Climate Changers" is they do not follow scientific principles.  For a theory to be valid, it has to be provable or disprovable.  Yet the true believers, and they are just that, true believers, attribute any and all climate events as Global Warming Man Made Climate Change.  This also apparently includes volcanic erruptions according to the high priest of climate change Al Gore. 


Insults and ridicule are the last tools of party who has no arguement.  You do yourself a great disservice by resorting to those fallacious arguement styles.  If you are going to Troll, step up your game. 


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:23 | 4448003 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Anything to backup your assertions, or just mere projection?

Sorry you don't like Al Gore, get over it...


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:43 | 4448404 Tough Mudder
Tough Mudder's picture

Not much, just standard scientific methodology.


You misunderstand, I LOVE Al Gore.  He is highly entertaining!

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:42 | 4448403 Drachma
Drachma's picture

I‘ve noticed some common threads amongst fanatics who can only spout vitriol towards anyone who would disagree with them and their supposed iron-clad ‘science’ of ‘climate-change’;

#1. They put their complete faith in a political organization parading as a scientific institution (i.e. IPCC). Who are these so-called climate experts on the IPCC panel, which the faithful congregation seem to defer all critical thought to? Well let’s take a look at just some of the contributors to WGII Fourth Assessment Report and their expertise on climate science:

Patricia Craig (Web Designer), Judith Cranage (Administrative Assistant), Susan Mann (Administrative Assistant) and Christopher Pfieffer (Network Administrator), Peter Neofotis (2003 graduate in Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology), Marta Vicarelli (PhD candidate in ‘Sustainable Development’), Gianna Palmer (was scheduled to graduate from Wesleyan University in 2010), Johanna Wolf (working in the department of ‘Development Studies’ at East Anglia), Anna Taylor (researcher whose focus is “stakeholder engagement in adapting to multiple stresses, including climate variability and change, water scarcity, food insecurity and health concerns”), Susanne Rupp-Armstrong (at time, contributor to one academic paper), Maureen Agnew (researcher whose focus is “Public perceptions of unusually warm weather in the UK: impacts, responses and adaptations” and “Potential impacts of climate change on international tourism”), Katherine Vincent (specializing in “Social Capital and Climate change” at University of East Anglia), Farhana Yamin (international lawyer, based at the University of Sussex), Rachel Warren (“environmental consultant”), Paul Watkiss (“environmental consultant”), Kate Studd (employee for Catholic Agency for Overseas Development).

And of course we can’t forget the man with the most qualifications as a climate expert, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri (train engineer).

I’ll leave it to the believers themselves to research the rest of these so-called expert climate scientists they put their faith in.

#2. They have forgotten that a real scientist is by definition a skeptic and not a follower of consensus. Climate doomsayers seem to have no powers of analysis of their own and are just herded from one manufactured crisis to another. In true tribal fashion they fall for the ‘divide and conquer’ techniques of those holding the reins of power, and immediately seek to alienate and vilify anyone not on their righteous team fighting for the greater good of humanity.

#3. They seem to think that theirs is a grass-roots ‘David and Goliath’ movement of innocent, courageous individuals saving the earth from the evil giant corporate monsters that seek to destroy the helpless planet. Simultaneously they buy into the false narrative that humanity is the problem, some going so far as to urge suicide in order that they may do what’s best for mother earth.

#4. They believe that computer models equate to unquestionable science. This is never the case, even under optimal conditions, yet alone when emails amongst East Anglia ‘global-warmists’ prove that the data sets those models are based on had been manipulated, omitted or generally bastardized beyond recognition in order to arrive at foregone conclusions based on political agendas.

#5. They generally believe that authority (i.e. someone in a suit with a fancy title who has more power than them) cannot be corrupted and always puts its interests secondary to others.

There are more of course, but that would require a book. Rant over.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 16:02 | 4449348 malek
malek's picture

+1 Excellent

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 20:44 | 4449459 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

A lot of irrelevant dribble...

To a climate scientist debating AGW is akin to debating gravity... The deal is done, you can debate how fast and how severe, that is about it....

BTW, regurgiting Climategate nonsense is flogging a long dead horse...

Out of curiosity can you tell us if the IPCC does original research for their reports? Do you know?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 08:41 | 4451889 Ar-Pharazôn
Ar-Pharazôn's picture

dumbass debate the fact that none of them is a fucking climatologist.


then shut the fuck up troll

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:43 | 4452060 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You clearly have no idea what the IPCC actually does then, do you?

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7]

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:49 | 4446820 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Tyler, most of your sources are good. You are citing someone from the epicenter of libtardism, UC Berkley. 

Yeah, UC berkeley bunch of dumbasses, only 20+ nobel laureates in science and almost a dozen Turing recipients among their alumni / staff.


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:09 | 4446869 hungrydweller
hungrydweller's picture

Meaningless.  Sycophants, all of them.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:11 | 4447367 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

Not me.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:31 | 4447780 pods
pods's picture

Broad brush. Peter Duesberg is also a Berkeley guy.

For those who do not know of him, he is a scientist that has questioned the whole HIV/AIDS scam.


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:11 | 4446877 drendebe10
drendebe10's picture

Some how the Nobel halo effect has lost some of its sheen since they gave one to the arrogant narcissistic pathological lying illegal alien kenyan muslim sociopath squatting in the white house.  Goes to show politics n power will annihilate knowledge and competence hands down every time. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:59 | 4446976 gtb
gtb's picture

Adding to your list, the shit stain in the white house is also gay. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:15 | 4447103 InjectTheVenom
InjectTheVenom's picture

... not that there's anything wrong with that !

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:16 | 4447373 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Gotta be PC brother, it makes one feel better about anal raping.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:33 | 4447522 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Yes, every legitimate Nobel Prize winner should drive to DC and beat his ass for that one.  It diminished everything that humanity supposedly stands for to award the Peace Prize to that piece of trash, whatever his real name or whoever his real father is.  


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:14 | 4446881 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Yeah, the only thing they're missing is Paul Krugman.

How does this article exist without the requisite proclamations of "man-caused global climate change"?  Surely the imminent commencement of a 100+ year long drought must be proof of it, given how a single season of abnormal cold in North America is already being heralded as proof of same.

This all sounds like a lot of well thought-out-science to me.  Surely they could have guaranteed their research grants by throwing a bone to climate change in here somewhere.

What an incredible missed opportunity.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 06:41 | 4447291 Truthseeker2
Truthseeker2's picture

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The California Drought But Were Afraid To Ask!


"There is no question that the relevant data and pertinent satellite photos demonstrate that California and southern Oregon were targeted to prevent precipitation from reaching their shores from the Pacific Ocean."



"There are many satellite photos which clearly illustrate the geoengineered wall, by way of chemtrails and HAARP frequencies, that was erected off the West Coast."


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:35 | 4447526 aerojet
aerojet's picture

I'm not even going to try and refute this.  You prove it, you fucking moron.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:16 | 4446891 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Gauss knew better than to argue with the Boeotians....

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:23 | 4446910 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Unfortunately I'm no Gauss, point taken though. Hard to resist. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 01:04 | 4446984 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Lord, please give me the strength...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 01:46 | 4447068 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

So maybe if they stoped spraying the fuck out of the Pacific ocean and let some rain in then this would not be happening.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 01:53 | 4447079 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

B-B-Beg pardon??

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:57 | 4447346 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Pray to the Lord or to your State. It is sad to say, I choose the Lord as I think he has more credibility.

Its sad to say that I feel the need to pray to anyone or thing, but when rationality seems to have left the world, what are we left with?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:18 | 4447110 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

He figured the odds were Minus 2 Sigma?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:17 | 4446896 Lore
Lore's picture

Re: "only 20+ nobel laureates in science..."

Only ONE in the White House!

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:20 | 4446903 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Really? Obama has a Nobel in science? Who even knew!

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:31 | 4447125 sylviasays
sylviasays's picture

We know more about George Zimmerman's background than we'll ever know about the Obozo in the White House.  


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 07:56 | 4447347 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Obama's mysterious past helps sustain his messiah followins. Facts and the truth would "humanize" him far too much.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 07:14 | 4447309 Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

After Arafat and Al Gore, political scientists, the wheels came off the cart.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:49 | 4446961 the 300000000th...
the 300000000th percent's picture

Isnt Krugman a Nobel Laureate?? And didnt Obama get one of those just for being black???

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:57 | 4446971 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

No & no. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:32 | 4447126 sylviasays
sylviasays's picture

NO & YES! 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:43 | 4447414 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

i thought obamas was for being 'not bush'

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:10 | 4447652 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

No. There is no Nobel Prize fro Economics. What people casually refer to as such is actually the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 01:38 | 4447049 mumbo_jumbo
mumbo_jumbo's picture

i watched a great documentary about "experts" and why we bother to listen to them, most are pushing an agenda to sell you something and according to that documentary the "experts" were wrong ~90% of the time.

we only need to look at the stock bubble in 1999, the housing bubble in 2007 and the return of both now (and the experts telling us it's neither) for proof that the "experts" are full of shit and more than likely are wrong.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:32 | 4447127 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You clearly do not understand the difference between paid shill and scientist...


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:02 | 4447354 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Paid shills only support your opposition. A scientist is only driven by truth and refuses the rewards of wealth, instead vowing a life of poverty. Now that Obamacare has liberated so many of us from the slavery of work, even more can follow the path of enlightenment and government dependency.

Just for giggles, how many of your climatologists are paid by non government supported entities?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:51 | 4447427 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

difference between a shill and a scientist eh?

so which are the warmists?

there is a great documentary out there about the billionaire who started this whole warming bonanza

jesse ventura also did an episode about him on conspiracy theory

your original scientist wasnt a scientist at all

he is an oil mogul billionaire

flakmeister, please, just do a tiny bit of research about your beliefs

google my brother

thats what its there for

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:30 | 4447515 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You do realize that AGW wsa predicted back in 1896...

based on the  infrared absorption properties of C02 observed in 1859

And the first guy to demonstate a warming trend was this guy in 1938

So, in the spirit of good debate, let's limit ourselves to facts, 'kay

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:39 | 4447537 aerojet
aerojet's picture

In 1896, people were still getting leech treatments and electro-shocks to tone the muscles.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:25 | 4448019 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And we already had Maxwells equations, discovered the electron, radioactivity and the transmission of radio waves...

Do you have a point?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:35 | 4448362 xavi1951
xavi1951's picture

1970 The Coming Ice Age

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 16:12 | 4449387 malek
malek's picture

Orwell at it's finest:

A scientist is (by your definition) never a paid shill.
Man-made global warming was proposed by scientists. (By who's definition? Oh, let's just skip that.)
As scientists are never shills, it must be true that man-made global warming is happening.


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 03:30 | 4447195 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

i watched a great documentary about "experts" and why we bother to listen to them, most are pushing an agenda to sell you something and according to that documentary the "experts" were wrong ~90% of the time.

Yeah exactly. Whenever I use my computer, car, telephone, electrcity, medicine...etc. I'm always reminded that these so called 'experts' are purely full of shit!

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:15 | 4447369 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

James, are you a member of the Church of Scientology? I mean they definitely have a religious vigor as you do, and they have "science" in their name, so they have to be correct in their beliefs, right? It seems to me we have had plenty of "scientists" in our history, helping set policy on the road to hell.

Nothing wrong with science. We don't have to be Luddites here, but when we are told the debate is over and that we MUST obey and follow government paid science and dictum, especially when such policies will have dramatic effects on our world as we know it, not too mention advancing even further wealth distribution to the ultra rich, well.... we know it stinks. Every country that accepts and pushes the advancement of carbon policies are also centrally controlled governments up to their neck in financial criminality, who do not hesitate a second to "do what it takes" to keep their rich friends rich and getting more so.

Like you, it not so much about the science as who is getting paid. Its just that I am more concerned about the corruptive power of governments than of Exxon Mobil.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:56 | 4447439 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

 Its just that I am more concerned about the corruptive power of governments than of Exxon Mobil


arent those two groups the same?

and if any of them really cared about the planet, there are plenty of real issues that could be addressed that they wont even pay lip service to

when the world led by a coalition at the UN puts forth their best effort to help with this planet killer mess at fukushima, then maybe, just maybe, i might begin to believe they care about our world

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:16 | 4447688 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Exxon has great influence, no doubt. But they are competing for interest with other influential groups, where as the government, combined with world governments, has ultimate and final say. We see with the current administration that constitutional issues are no issue. Yes we can sue them but they simply ignore the courts when it suits them. I still have a choice if I buy Exxon products, but government has me firmly in their grasp and will not let go.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 13:31 | 4448654 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

We see with the current administration that constitutional issues are no issue. Yes we can sue them but they simply ignore the courts when it suits them. 

I wouldn't trust anything politicians say and certainly never assume they would do the right thing. So I get why people would be suspicious when .gov hears about a great new way to tax people to death and starts talking a lot about it, but it's possible to separate that from the science. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:41 | 4447546 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Well, my "Ultimate Driving Machine" sure has a lot of problems.  What that tells us is that everything engineered is full of design trade-offs and that the trade-offs are made by people involved in marketing and the bean counters trying to keep the lights on.

Medicine has come a long way, it may have been invaded by rent seekers, but it remains a noble profession.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 07:08 | 4447304 Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

When engineers build model of a aircraft, heck even small boys, the model flies. Climate "scientists" model, not so much. Matter of fact not one "flies".
The climate "models", tbat don't model anything, that don't behave in predicative ways are not models by definition ( a thing is what it does, or doesn't do) .
So why are things that have no behavior or characteristics of models called, "models"?
Is there some limitation of language? No.
It is either fraud or delusion or a combination of both. And greed. Always follow the money.
I don't consider that observed behavior science.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 01:01 | 4451499 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Educate yourself instead displaying your ignorance, here is American Institute of Physics on the matter

It took a long time to figure out and they are still not perfect but they a long way beyond your understanding...

Thats right, always follow the money and it leads to a campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt being funded by the fossil fuel interests...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 08:41 | 4451892 Ar-Pharazôn
Ar-Pharazôn's picture

can i remember you that Obomba is peace nobel prize?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:25 | 4446912 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

I've met more than one physicist from UC Berkeley.  Outstanding scientists.  Total fucking retards when it comes to politics and economics. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:34 | 4446928 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

Exactly right, cowboy.  Of course, there's plenty of BS in the political types in the science departments there, but also some damn brilliant minds.  Note that the scientist quoted here wasn't babbling about man-made global warming, but oscillations over thousands of years.  Too bad some people here are so proud of their ignorance.

As for the rest, most are marxists and that's being kind.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:40 | 4446944 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Note that the scientist quoted here wasn't babbling about man-made global warming, but oscillations over thousands of years.

Yep, better only look at the above quotes though, because you might get verrry verrryyyy upset if you were read more into Lynns work.


You mentioned global warming. Is what we’re seeing consistent with the predictions that have been made about how climate change could affect California?

Yes. We’ve already started having a decreased snow pack and increased wild fire frequency. And we’ve been warming, and it’s gotten drier. With Pacific Decadal Oscillation [the ever-changing temperature of surface water in the North Pacific Ocean], every 20 or 30 years we go in and out of these positive and negative shifts that affect precipitation and temperature. But now we’re entering a period where it looks like we’re getting drier even though it doesn’t necessarily correspond to that cycle. It looks like a trend. It’s warming and drying, and that’s definitely a big concern for Western states.

So on the one hand we should be worried about a drought, but on the other hand we should be worried about a flood?

Yes. If you look at the past, you realize that our climate is anything but reliable. We’ve seen these big fluctuations. Extreme droughts and extreme floods


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 03:33 | 4447199 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

The segment you quote is specifically regarding California not having a snowpack (true), being drier (true) and warmer (true.).  I can attest to that.  You have no clue how hot and dry it's been here.  This is our cool rainy season and it hasn't shown up.  Come April, it's the dry season where it essentially never rains until October.  Ever lived somewhere with no rain for a year?  

That's the entire point.  We may be entering a long term dry cycle for the west.  It has NOTHING to do with man-made global warming, except perhaps at best, at the fringe.   That what she is talking about in what you posted. 

The entire western US has seen exponential population growth and over-the-top grazing allocations for cattle by the BLM for the last 30-40 years.  This has all occurred during a cycle wet period.   The disturbing fact is that the inevitable dry cycle, whether this is it or not, will force idiot humans to shut down things like gigantic water fountains in Las Vegas, perhaps even force a choice between food and meat production and water for urban consumption.


Wake up.



Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:24 | 4447387 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

Anyone who has watched the water level drop in Lake Mead knows that bad times are here.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:46 | 4447567 aerojet
aerojet's picture

And not one of them can change a flat tire!  I've worked with hundreds of those types of people and their personalities are all very similar.  I think that is part of the problem--academia chases out people with above average intelligence who possess common sense in favor of the far end of the curve.  But brilliant people are blind in certain ways and are often arrogant or fearful or both.  It's a strange world.

I told my thesis adviser that I thought the BLS was cooking the numbers.  He got mad at me for making such a crazy suggestion.  Turns out, I was right.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:13 | 4447670 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Or life in general ...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:38 | 4446941 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

Correct. The normal 20th century weather in California was much dryer than in some eariler periods. I can't say about "average" or "normal", whatever those terms mean in the hand of an academic with an axe to grind but the range has been been from much wetter to much dryer. A case in point can be seen in the forests in the Southern California mountains. When a fire burns a section of forest in the San Gabriel, San Bernadino or San Jacinto mountain ranges the forest usually won't regenerate but is replaced by chaparral brush. Those forests were established during the wet times of the last ice age and have been able to maintain themselves, but the current climate is too dry to allow young pines to compete with the more adapted brush. It's been wetter and it's been dryer so what evidence is there that the next change won't send back towards the times when the Central Valley was a forest? This scientist has seen enough to know you can't trust a scientist who is trying to support a cherished belief. Very few try to gather the facts and try to let them tell the story, most have a theory and search for data that bulsters their belief.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:35 | 4447130 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


But there is nothing a scientist loves more than intellectually crucifying another scientist who is wrong...

It is called peer review...

So quit projecting your asinine beliefs about how science works...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:23 | 4447384 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Kind of like the Catholic church peer reviews all of their policy statements. There have been plenty of complaints, for years, about this peer review process and how those doing the reviewing have been "selected" to support a particular agenda, even though they might question specifics within. Lots of complaints about how those scientists have also refused to release their raw data, in some cases lost or destroyed, that were used to support their conclusions. This thing has been as thoroughly vetted as Obama's college years.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:36 | 4447529 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So why don;t the Kochs buy the answer they want...

Oh, they tried that and it blew up in their face:

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:50 | 4447581 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

because you cant buy the answer you want, much to the chagrin of tax loving governments everywhere.


the fundamentals either support your conclusion or they dont.  you either observe honestly and admit when you have erred, or you are dishonest.  you give other scientists your RAW data AND the METHODS used to obtain your final results.


hiding things like that because someone might find something wrong with what you are trying to portray is unscientific and dishonest.


I'm sure you agree with the above, but unfortunately too indoctrinated to see where your beliefs violate every bit of the above.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:27 | 4447765 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The BEST collaboration was supposed to set shit straight according to Anthony Watts at WUWT... They did, they confirmed all the other studies that they has previously publically denigrated...

Here is the spokemans mea culpa:

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:49 | 4447852 gmak
gmak's picture

The climate has been steadily, slowly, surely warming since the 1600s.  Here is the oldest temperature record in the world the CET. Nobody denies that. Most sceptics are there because they are suspicious of how quickly the alarmists are trying to shut down debate and how they quickly turn to propaganda and bullying to push their points. They are also concerned that curve fitting is being used to justify all the alarmist contentions and that the viewpoint is one-sided and unbalanced.



Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:05 | 4447913 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

You are correct and you help to prove my point. You have very conveniently cherry picked the 1600's, known as the mini ice age, as your starting point for your trend. Why did you pick that particular point I wonder? By choosing it you can produce a graph that strikingly supports your previously held belief. If you had started the trend line in 1500 or 1400 your data set would have looked pretty dismal but that is of no concern because intellectual integrity is of secondary importance when trying to support a cherished belief. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:11 | 4447945 gmak
gmak's picture

Please. This is not my starting point. It simply illustrates that termperature has been rising very slowly. this is the unaltered record of CET. It is the longest available temperature record on the planet. The point of the graph is that there is NO AGW. My belief is that there is NO AGW as well. Don't get your knickers in a twist. :-)



Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:14 | 4447959 gmak
gmak's picture

In fact, I believe that the sun has a greater impact on climate through its cycles than does a small bit of CO2 which is less than 3% of total atmosphere. It seems that as CO2 rises, water vapour falls if the latest studies are to be believed, which means that many or most of the alarmist models are inaccurate since they don't show this.


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:28 | 4447960 gmak
gmak's picture

duplicate post 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:47 | 4447570 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Peer review only goes so far when foregone conclusions are in the mix.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:14 | 4447673 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Versus your naive and utopian ones?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:00 | 4447353 greatbeard
greatbeard's picture

>> You are citing someone from the epicenter of libtardism

Yeah, how about some credible sources like Rush or one of the Koch sucker brothers?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:03 | 4447458 Landrew
Landrew's picture

You think UC Berkley has no credibility? I suppose you think your basement has credibility.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 03:44 | 4447208 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Does this mean the Mexicans are going to go home and come back legally?


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:32 | 4446922 QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

or freezing tax. 

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:03 | 4446694 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

A scientific prediction of more drought conditions can only mean one thing.  Torrential rains and floods are on their way.


Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:15 | 4446727 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Well the could have built a water pipeline, some desalinzation plants, not emptied their reserviors and deported some illegals to reduce demand.  These would have been relatively cheap options.  Instead they spent $10 billion on high speed rail which they will never complete.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:35 | 4446931 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

Absolutely, all of the above.  Now the water goes to the mega-cities, filled with millions of illegals, instead of farmers who provide fruits and veggies to the country all winter.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:24 | 4447120 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

FYI... San Diego is getting a desalination plant, to be built by an Israeli company. Look it up.

It's not like American don't have tech or dessert experience, right?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:38 | 4447132 sylviasays
sylviasays's picture

The typical cost of running desalination plants can be between $2,000 to $3000 an acre-foot. In contrast, surface water from reservoirs and mountain runoff, in plentiful years, can be as cheap as $100 an acre-foot.


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 02:46 | 4447144 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Dessert experience?   You mean like strawberry shortcake? (Mmmm!)

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:22 | 4447492 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Building water pipelines especially if you need to move the water long distances and especially against any gradient is incredibly energy intensive and expensive.  Ditto building and operating a desalinzation plant.  There are cheaper ways to expand water capacity especially in residental use but the issue is agriculture and especially the shift to water intense crops including nuts.  Deporting illegals isn't cheap either. 

Freddie is symbolic of the classic 'Murica element that is very prevalent on here: loud, angry, and spouting off nonsense/falsehoods left & right. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:10 | 4446873 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

good one "stuck on"

I need my ZH bro's to help me with labeling these weather phenomenons.   Gorbama calls it "climate change".  When I'm stuck in one of these arguements I agree with them and call it what it is..."climate variation".   "climate variation" sits opposed to "climate consistency".   Since when has our climate been consistent?  Not in my lifetime.   Every single year I've been alive we've had record rain, record head, record snow, record cold, record drought, etc...somewhere.   Climates are not consistent and they are variable.   They do change.  The notion that we can change something and then prevent "change" in weather is perhaps the most absurd notion ever.   It's like...Kenysian Climatology.

Climate Variation - hate it, love it, we'll have to live with it.

In the meantime, I may just finally be able to pick up that vacation home on the California coast.  (bring your own water)

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:12 | 4446882 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

That's right, much better are bible based predictions......

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:30 | 4446921 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

That's actually not uncommon in long drawn out droughts.  I'm in one now.  Last year was hot and very dry, with June having no precipitation and quite a few days in triple digits.  Then we were shithammered by storms in July and September.  Now, it's quite dry again and getting up into the mid 60s.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the same happens to California. 

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 00:38 | 4446940 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

Been out in So Cal for almost 25 years, nothing like the last two years in my memory.  This is really bad.  We're almost through the rainy sesaon and there hasn't been a thing.  Expect lots of wildfires, cattle sell offs and food production disasters.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 01:45 | 4447065 mumbo_jumbo
mumbo_jumbo's picture


i've been here a bit longer and have a better memory than you, please see my link on page 2.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 03:39 | 4447205 thamnosma
thamnosma's picture

Wow, impressive how you have a better memory than me.   I guess I should kneel down in respect.

Just FYI, I've been looking at the NOAA records for downtown LA since they began.  The 70's had a similar dry spell that was before my time.  It was very serious.   There was another while I've been here that resulted in conservation measures like requiring a customer to request a glass of water, which I believe is almost routine since then.

However, this particular 2 year drought is apparently a century level event from what I'm reading due to the widespread nature of it throughout California.  

What was being discussed here was whether this is some signal of a longer term drought.  Perhaps it is nothing but a 2-3 year extreme dry cycle.  Who knows?  Oh, I guess you do.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:37 | 4447406 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

yeah, its almost like....the last time the sun did what it just did with any significance.  dust bowl of the 30s.


the sun's magnetism dropping low enough to fuck up the jetstream happened then, too.  but these days, we have government paid shills to reinforce the notion that the government needs to tax us more.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 09:38 | 4447534 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you show the connection between the Sun's magnetic field and the Jet Stream?

Or did you pull that out of your ass?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:21 | 4447586 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

LOL are you fucking serious???


what the hell did you get your phd in, basket weaving?


I am assuming you have SOME level of ability to follow what I'm writing...what are you missing?  how electromagnetism could possibly affect this setup here???  if that's too much of an intellectual stretch for you, I'm not going to be inclined to enlighten you.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:29 | 4447771 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ball is in your court...

Show me the data...

Go ahead and surprise us with something factual for a change...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:50 | 4447857 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

yeah, because observation is not factual?


in case you missed the note, EM is the bedrock of all physical structure.  is it really too far of a stretch for you to think that the electromagnetic effects of the sun affect processes on the earth?  remember those lil things called field lines and how they progress and twist throughout the solar system?  remember where they come pouring into the earth?  what happens when the flux density wanes below certain values in certain places?  why are stronger polar vortices correlated with lower solar values?  how is EM responsible for the evolution of polar vortices?  what mechanisms are responsible for the perturbation of the 11/22 year sunspot cycle, how does EM relate?  why do depressed solar cycles correlate with periods of cold on earth?


boy this whole leading someone towards turning the gears in their head is getting old.  imagination is more important than knowledge.  one may always obtain more knowledge, but intuitively understanding fundamentals is ten thousand times harder to teach.


start asking questions that contain fundamentals and you will start getting answers that contain fundamentals.


rely on questions that ignore fundamentals in search of a predetermined conclusion, and allyou're likely to have is a bunch of models with predictive capability hovering somewhere just above zero.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:24 | 4448292 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Long on spin and short on content...

You are clearly a clown...

why do depressed solar cycles correlate with periods of cold on earth?

Could it be that the amount on incident energy on the earth is lower?? Knock me over with a feather...

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 13:10 | 4448557 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

hah, where's the comments about how the TSI doesnt change much and can ostensibly considered constant!


you agree with me and then still stick to your carbon joke?


I love the way AGW supporters play any side of the fence they wish and it *always* backs up their claims in their own very blindered eyes.

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 16:27 | 4449476 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

There have been times in the past when change in the solar output was a greater forcing than from the change in C02... Since 1970 or so, C02 is more important...

Is that so hard to grasp?

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 14:55 | 4449065 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Notice Flak, how he refuses to enlighten us. I wonder why? I am waiting to learn a new field of physics, I see a Nobel Prize for this guy, if he can backk up his statements!

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 16:28 | 4449481 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What was that saying? 

All hat and no cattle....

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:21 | 4447380 DRT RD
DRT RD's picture

Call Charlie, he'll help like he did in San Diego!!!!


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:21 | 4447381 DRT RD
DRT RD's picture

Call Charlie, he'll help like he did in San Diego!!!!


Tue, 02/18/2014 - 08:59 | 4447444 fockewulf190
fockewulf190's picture

Can't start that plant up without confirming to the world that the water is contaminated with radiation....either from Fuki or from some wastedump off shore or both. Look what happened to those 50+ crewmembers of the USS Ronald Reagan who used the ships desalinated water when the ship was a little too close to Japan. California would be sued to the stone age.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:36 | 4446600 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

"We have been in a fairly cold phase of PDO since the early 2000s"


so, global warming is causing the ocean to cool down?

sarcasm aside, if we can show historical correlations that the weather changes and oscilates, why are we still subjected to the global warming tripe?

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:43 | 4446617 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

what if anything will the fukushima mess contribute to this?

are we better off with a drought and less radioactive rain?

think about british weather for a moment

remember that the gulf oil spill was possibly going to effect the global converyor and cause the type of weather the brits are experiencing right now

 theres your anthropogenic effects

co2 aint shit

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:47 | 4446639 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture



You just made a bingo!

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:57 | 4446673 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

at least one warmist doesnt like me though

Tue, 02/18/2014 - 06:35 | 4447288 KickIce
KickIce's picture

I was kinda looking forward to the Gilligan's Island effect with radioactive plants.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 22:44 | 4446623 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

The solution is simple, invade Canada and pipe what we need south.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:10 | 4446715 Its_the_economy...
Its_the_economy_stupid's picture

you and i may be the only ones paying attention to the REAL current event.

Mon, 02/17/2014 - 23:16 | 4446723 Bindar Dundat
Bindar Dundat's picture

We have been trying to sell you fuckers on a pipeline for years but you rightwing assholes don't know your head from your assholes.


You are helpless jerks without a Government and no belly to do anything but play with yourselves and use food stamps.


It would be like the Germans invading Russia and your heads would be handed to you on a plate.


Fuck off and die tahoeBilly2012

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!