More dishonest than trying to use the current drought as proof of AGW?

I wasn't trying to use this to dispute AGW theories, just pointing out that AGW-theorists will almost certainly use the current drought as proof of AGW when it instead appears to be a reversion to the norm.

"The extreme atmospheric conditions associated with California's crippling drought are far more likely to occur under today's global warming conditions than in the climate that existed before humans emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases." [http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/drought-climate-change-092914.html]

"Record California Drought Linked to Climate Change
Rising temperatures, not low precipitation, may be to blame for the West’s severe dry spell, Stanford researchers say." [http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/02/record-california-drought-linked-to-climate-change]

Increasing temperatures are projected to further reduce snowpack, which will lead to reduced streamflows, especially in the spring.

Springtime precipitation is likely to decrease significantly, making it more difficult to meet water demands during the summer, [2] when conditions are typically the driest.
Climate change will likely stress groundwater-based systems and result in decreased groundwater recharge. [3]
While severe droughts are already part of the Southwest climate, human-induced climate change will likely result in more frequent and more severe droughts with associated increases in wildfires. [2]
Projected temperature increases, river-flow reductions, dwindling reservoirs, and rapid population growth will increase the competition for water resources across sectors, states, tribes, and even between the United States and Mexico. This could potentially lead to conflicts. [http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html#impactswater]

The last 150 years or so in Cali have actually been abnormally wet, similar to the wet period between two century-plus drought period 2000 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07...

BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

The study involved trees at four places: Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the West Walker River and Osgood Swamp. Dr. Stine's tree-ring analysis found that live trees had covered dry beds of lakes, streams and swamps for overlapping periods of 50, 100, 141 and 220 years and that these "lowstand" periods were clustered in two major dry spells separated by a century-long wet period. "Epic drought," he wrote in Nature, is "the only plausible explanation for the site-to-site contemporaneity of the stumps."

Calling the current period a "drought" is contingent upon assuming the rainfall pattern of the last 150 years or so is normal. Research seems to indicate that the last 150 years were abnormally wet and that Cali climate is usually much drier. Doesn't matter though, as the current drought plays into the AGW narrative, because "climate change".

"California's current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state's recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West's long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.

And they worry that the "megadroughts" typical of California's earlier history could come again.

Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

"We continue to run California as if the longest drought we are ever going to encounter is about seven years," said Scott Stine, a professor of geography and environmental studies at Cal State East Bay. "We're living in a dream world."

Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.

Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall -- the kind that would cause devastating floods today.

The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.

What if I think he's a despicable traitor who just happened--in the course of his treasonous endeavors--to shed light on the NSA's probably extralegal practices.

But which practices didn't *really* surprise anyone.

And they'll slurp gcc into systemd too.

Is that where we're headed?

George Costanza: [Soup Nazi gives him a look] Medium turkey chili.
[instantly moves to the cashier]
Jerry Seinfeld: Medium crab bisque.
George Costanza: [looks in his bag and notices no bread in it] I didn't get any bread.
Jerry Seinfeld: Just forget it. Let it go.
George Costanza: Um, excuse me, I - I think you forgot my bread.
Soup Nazi: Bread, $2 extra.
George Costanza: $2? But everyone in front of me got free bread.
Soup Nazi: You want bread?
George Costanza: Yes, please.
Soup Nazi: $3!
George Costanza: What?
Soup Nazi: NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Soup Nazi: What is this? You're kissing in my line? NOBODY KISSES IN MY LINE!
Sheila: I can kiss anywhere I want to.
Soup Nazi: You just cost yourself a soup!

Elaine Benes: Um... you know what? Has anyone ever told you you look exactly like Al Pacino? You know, "Scent Of A Woman." Who-ah! Who-ah!
Soup Nazi: Very good. Very good.
Elaine Benes: Well, I...
Soup Nazi: You know something?
Elaine Benes: Hmmm?
Soup Nazi: NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Elaine Benes: What?
Soup Nazi: COME BACK ONE YEAR! NEXT!

Agree with all of that.

Disagree with "Should a gay man be forced to take pictures of a straight wedding. Yes."
Disagree with "Should a Jewish man be forced to take pictures of a German Octoberfest wedding? Yes."

Could a devoutly Christian photographer ask her potential wedding clients "Have you engaged in premarital sex?" and then refuse to provide her services for their wedding if the answer in the affirmative?

If so, is she discriminating against any protected class (or class people wish was a protected class--LGBT not protected class everywhere)? What class might that be?

Or is she merely exercising her discretion in a fashion similar to--but for different reasons than--she might refuse to participate in a Nazi-themed wedding. And if refusing to participate in the Nazi-themed wedding is a fair refusal (and a right I would argue she surely ought to be able to exercise). After all, the people chose to have premarital sex, just as the Nazi-lovers (Nazi loving lovers?) chose to be Nazi-lovers. The only difference is her thought process in arriving at her decision to refuse service.

I agree it's bad form to discriminate against gays or black or any for simply being gay or black. OTOH, I'm pretty fine with businesses refusing service to Nazis, KKK, vegans, Greenpeace members, Westboro Baptist Church members, drunks, people with screaming kids,...

The problem is crafting a law that allows refusing service for *some* approved reasons (Nazis) while prohibiting it for *some* other reasons (gay). And the real kicker is who gets to decide which reasons go into which pile. I'm pretty certain that my list of approved reasons for refusing service (or not being allowed to refuse service) are different from yours.

A related problem is that the law must be carefully crafted so that false positives are not commonplace. E.g., if is OK by law to refuse service to someone who appears to be intoxicated, I ought not to get sued for racial discrimination for refusing service to a blitzed-out drunk who happens to be black.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Right or wrong, LGTB is not in there. Nor is LGBTQIA. And certainly not LGBTTQQIIAA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Intergender, Asexual, & Allies).

Nor, for that matter, are fat, tall, short, ugly, smelly, smoker, tattooed, pierced, a protected class under CRA of 1864.

Just because I don't tolerate something does not mean I think that a law prohibiting that something is a good idea. On several occasions I have asked people (white people, and I'm white) to stop using the N word in my presence. But a law prohibiting that would be a violation of their (idiotic & racist) free speech and i would be against it.

So call him a bigot and give him a bad Yelp review, then find a photographer who is a better person.

Gay photographer refuses to take pictures at a straight wedding at Westboro Baptist Church.
Jewish photographer refuses to take pictures at a Nazi-themed wedding.
Black photographer refuses to take pictures at a KKK wedding.
Devout Christian photographer refuses to take pictures at a wedding at Westboro Baptist Church because they think that WBC's teachings are not very Christian?

Different sides of the same coin. I think most people would find these all very valid reasons to refuse service. And any law that allows these photographers to refuse service but forces the former photographer to comply is misguided at best.

Rationally, either no one can ever deny service to anyone for any reason, or everyone can deny service to anyone for any reason. In between is the road to arbitrary and oftentimes capricious decisions about popular vs unpopular reasons.

A reminder about their password requirements.

I cannot begin to count the number of times I've had to hit "Forgot my password" simply because they do not remind me up fron that my password must have special character in it. For websites that do not have my personal information and especially not financial (blog sites, sport sites) I tend to use a common password so I don't have to remember different passwords. Again, completely different from any important password and used only for essentially throwaway sites.

But some sites require at least digit, others at least one Capital letter (or at least one lowercase), others at least one special character, others some combination.

The throwaway password usually meets these by virtue of the way it is constructed, but not always. Sometimes it has to be doubled to meet a length requirement, for example. But while they tell you this when you create the password, they never seem to remind you when you later have to enter your password.

Where is there there a jurisdiction where libertarians have a majority of legislatures needed to enact these laws?

of public safety laws.

Which for "progressives" often appears to mean "he got more than me! it's not fair!"

Ronaldo makes $80M per year kicking a ball around a field. I can kick a ball around a field, why am I not paid what he is paid?

Nancy Pelosi once said "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." I *really* want to be a professional basketball player, it's my life-long dream. Alas, I am a meager 5' 10" and have a shooting percentage measured in single-digits. But by Nancy's notions, I should not be denied my dream just so I can have health-care (and presumably lots of other things).