Go away troll.

No I said California and the Western U.S. would likely get drier, that's based on the general rule that drier place will tend to get drier, and that Seattle maybe would get more, because it's wetter because the general rule is also that wetter places will tend to get wetter. Those are predictions based on a general rule.

Why don't you pull the stick out of your ass? Maybe you could try acting like a person instead of a political asshole.

I am talking about general guidelines as opposed to specific predictions. Global warming is highly likely to make dry areas dryer and wet areas wetter.

Tha'ts just doubly dastardly!

Unfortunately, California and the Western U.S. will likely be on the on the end where more water evaporates and other areas, like Seattle maybe, will be on the end where "more water precipiates". So California and the Western U.S. are likely to become more desertified, and unfortunately when they do get rain, the risk of flash flooding will actually be worse because more rain will fall and the land will be less able to absorb it.

Isn't climate change wonderful? The people who already "get too much rain" will get more and the people who already "don't get enough rain" will get less and have more of their aquifers evaporate.

I hadn't heard of that, and when I looked into it, the truth appeared to be different from what you claimed. It looks like you had to click on the picture, and then click to download and then install the malware. One of the sites had malware pretending to be a VLC update, the others were peddling fake anti-virus software.

Then again considering the source... Bill Gates lying about Google? Why am I not surprised?

The basic consensus, that global warming is happening, that it's anthropogenic in origin, that if we continue with business as usual we will see somewhere between 2-6 degrees of warming before the end of the century.

That's a rather large shifting of the goal posts from what was being discussed earlier. But If you want to look on what the consensus is on the outcome of global warming, the IPCC reports are probably a good place to start. The level of agreement will naturally decline as you dive deeper into the specifics of outcomes.

I think it's more likely that the vast majority of climatologists are grouped somewhere near Hansen's position and a tiny minority are grouped somewhere near Christy's position. I seriously doubt that your "spectrum" exists in any meaninful way.

Prove it.

Among the experts the split is 97% to 1% (with 2% undecided). Christy and Spencer effectively are the 1% that disagrees with the consensus. Looking at the published literature the split is around 80% to 0% with 20% of the published articles having no discernable pro-AGW or anti-AGW conclusions (some anti-AGW papers have been published and then retracted because of methadological errors). In other words, although there are some climate scientists who disagree with the majority, they have not yet been able to produce anything significant to back up their opposition.

The topic of solutions is multi-disciplinary, it combines politics, economics, and science. It's difficult to establish any kind of consensus on a solution when half the political spectrum believes that the problem doesn't exist. Which, interestingly enough, is why libertarian groups like the Heartland Institute provide stipends to public speakers who deny that global warming is happening.

Hmm. I just see the paramedics now:

P1: This guy appears to be wounded.
P2: Are you sure, maybe he's supposed to be gushing blood. Maybe he's always gushed blood from that gaping chest wound.
P1: Are you serious?
P2: I think we should locate his childhood friends and ask them if this is a pre-existing condition.
P1: He's going to bleed to death at this rate.
P2: You don't know that, this could be his natural state.

By the way, a lot of time and effort goes into trying to figure out what the climate did in the distant past, it's called paleoclimatology.

What if it's not?

What if it has nothing to do with beliefs? What if they are just objectively bad, but you don't want to think so because your beliefs agree with those broadcast by Fox News. Personally, I'm mostly politically moderate. I don't agree with the Loony Left or the Rabid Right and Fox News (the channel) appears to be objectively one of the worst News channels out there because they mix propaganda in with real news. In their 24 hour days they have around 7 or 8 hours of real informational (only a little politically slanted) news, but that means they have 16-17 hours of "opinion" programming (political propaganda) each day. It's not just me, Fox news watchers have consistently scored poorly on knowledge tests about current events. In at least one such test they scored lower than people who actively read and watched no news content. That should be a troubling result.

Frankly, if you're going to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being biased, you'd better be doing a pretty good job of making sure you account for your own biases, which you haven't, because from your comments you appear to be rabidly right wing. You might want to consider whether some of the things you've "learned" from Fox News might be actually be distorted but you aren't seeing it because of your political leanings.

I would think it would be obvious that I was referring to increased precipation during the storm. You're supposed to be anonymous, not stupid.

Really? A book deal and speaking tours are implausible?

Are you aware that the Heartland Institute already pays about a stipend to about a dozen different pseudo-scientists to continue their anti-AGW work? Have you ever considered that maybe you're the one who's not in touch with reality any more?

Oh, please do enlighten me on this. I love to find out exactly which wild conspiracy theories I supposedly believe in this week.

You don't need math to prove Latour wrong. Latour's problem is a logical one, he's begging the question. He assumes that warmer objects can't absorb radiation from colder obejcts, however, that assumption necessitates that the conclusion is true all by itself. If the warmer body can't absorb the radiation then of course, the colder body can't warm it. Everything else is just window dressing (intentional or not) that hides the fundamental mistake. He needs to go back and prove that a warmer body can never absorb radiation from a colder body before his argument can have any value. It's easy to "prove" that any false conclusion is true, if you start with false assumptions.

Are you referring to Judith Curry? Her comments in the that blog post don't seem to indicate she actually believes that Muller has done anything of the sort. She does, however, have a history of retracting her inflammatory comments shortly after making them.

My imagination is fine, but apparently you don't understand hyperbole.

Really, if you're nit picking over exactly how rich someone would get off the discovery, you've already conceded the argument.