You've got to be kidding me. I have not picked a desired answer. For the life of me I cannot figure out why you would make such a statement. What possible benefit would there be for me to have a desired answer. What's in it for me? As an Objectivist, I find this statement insulting.

But beyond that, did you not read that I bought into the global warming hype at first? At one time, I looked to put wind & solar electricity on my property to save our planet but learned very quickly it did not add up. If I had to pay for it myself, it would have broke me. Not enough return for the cost to make it pay. What I learned in the process made me look even deeper into the subject of global warming. The data, and nothing else proved to me global warming was a hoax. Follow the money. It is all out there. Or not, that is your choice.

"What the hell it that supposed to mean?"
Sorry for the sarcasm and possible straw man. But it seems like you're saying science is unreliable because by its nature it changes when new evidence is presented. The possible straw-man thing I'm saying is that opposite of science is to pick one answer you like and stick to it.

Setting aside the the sarcasm, I believe if you start with a desired answer, you can almost always find evidence for it. To me denying the science of climate change is like a person facing a grave illness turning to alternative medicine. They note that research funding comes from drug companies, and there's no funding to study inexpensive ancient treatments. Maybe it's all a conspiracy, they think.

I underestimated you. And sorry for the "shut up" remark.

I wonder if California will work with the Israelis to deal with their millennial drought by using desal technology.

What the hell it that supposed to mean?

You just highlighted the entire issue with what you point out. First they cry cooling, then warming, then overpopulation, then global famine, then cooling, then warming, then cooling, then warming and when they see that people aren't listening because they are full of shit they move to the ambiguous catch-all Climate Change (which happens on every plant).

Where is the truth? Where are the facts? Where is the actual science?

These are questions that are big enough for books. I think we don't know the answer yet.

Q1: Will the effects of human activities be harmful/helpful to humankind or any species we depend on?
A: I think the answer is clearly yes. The current Holocene mass extinction event will obviously have many repercussions.

Q2: Are the huge lifestyle changes that the environmental movement demands of us likely to be the most cost-effective way of solving the problem?
A: I don't know much or care about what political movements think. As to how to solve the problem I think it will come from geo-engineering. Maybe it will come from LENR (which I suspect is not real but would love new evidence to the contrary) or something like it. None of that exists right now, so I think we should come up with models to price the effects of the pollution into our activities. That would lead to people developing a solution of some sort. How to price the effects is really thorny. You have work out the present value of futures costs. The math is simple if we knew the costs or the rate of interest/growth to use. But we don't know.

It's enough to make you want to bury your head in the sand and just say shut up.

"When I was in high school the buzz word was global cooling. "
At least you pick one answer you like and stick to it.

The weather does change over centuries. It always has. The important questions are (1) is it likely to be harmful to man or to any species that man depends on, and if yes, (2) are the huge lifestyle changes that the environmental movement demands of us likely to be the most cost-effective way of solving the problem?

There is zero credible evidence that either of the answers is likely to be yes. So shut up, Chicken Little.

1975: ALARM! ALARM! The earth is cooling and we're headed straight into a new ice age and New York City will be under 200 feet of ice by 2000 and it's all your fault so your rights have to be restricted and you have to be taxed more to combat it.

1995: ALARM ! ALARM! The earth is heating and the polar caps will melt and New York City will be under 200 feet of water by 2015 and it's all your fault so your rights have to be restricted and you have to be taxed more to combat it.

2010: ALARM! ALARM! There's climate change going on and we really don't know what the hell it's going to do, but whatever it is it's all your fault and your rights have to be restricted and you have to be taxed more to combat it.

Keep in mind the multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded weather forecasting system can't get next week correct consistently, so why in hell do I have to believe a handful of over granted academicians in whatever they prognosticate and pontificate about weather decades from now?

" The evidence shows greenhouse gases are changing the climate"
There is no evidence that there is such a phenomenon as the so-called Greenhouse effect let alone that it changes the climate. Changes in global temperature, a tricky concept, need careful analysis as data have been manipulated by government agencies of several nations so as to purport to show increases. (1). Whatever evidence is available shows no correlation, CO2 is rising, global temperatures have plateaued and probably declining. Data from geological records suggest CO2 follows temperature by some 800 years.
The volume of money (2) behind so-called climate change is not evidence for it but for venality. It is an alliance of the power hungry- governments, the venal-the institutions and looters, and the sheep of the new religion- that is what it is.
The evil from religious delusions knows no bounds. (3)

------------------
(1) "He who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
George Orwell '1984'

(2) US$1.5 trillion a year.

(3) "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C S Lewis

Come on CG. You seem way to inteligent to still believe these lies. When I was in high school the buzz word was global cooling. It had been cold and snowy for a few years. In 1988 there was a bad drought and soon after the narrative changed to global warming. I even bought into it for a ittle while. They were throwing out all the scary stuff that was going to happen if we didn't change our ways. But there was just too many inconsistenties in what they were saying. For one, every time there was a record temperature day it was breaking a record from the 1800's. That didn't make sense with the data that was being spread. And now the word of the day is climate change. This if for 2 reasons. First all the scary stuff they said that was going to happen did not happen. None of it. Second, now they can use every single weather event to scare gullable people into sending more money to the government and pit people against those mean rich people. Another way to cause devision in society. This is a move right out of "Rules for Radicals".

Edited because I hit the wrong key before I finished typing. :)

I have more information.

More than five years ago, I traveled to Israel and took a guided tour. My guide, an employee of the Ministry of Tourism, said Israel does not grant or recognize any patent having to do with agriculture. Said she: "The next war will be a water war. We have an interest not to withhold a new source of water and fight a war over it."

Of course, the Arabs have an imperative, not for water, but for ideology. All else is incidental. But this should prove the value to America of the Israel alliance. Technology remains their greatest export. Those who benefit from that technology, should find it in their interest to protect the source.

There are far to many alarmists in the argument about the climate, most driven by fame and endowments, all seeking power and control. Climate change is a natural occurrence on every planet. Climate change is absolutely nothing new and its would occur if man wasn't here at all. You don't falsify data to make your case. You don't sell carbon credits to save the planet, only fleece the gullible. You do those things to dupe th emasses into ceding control of their live while making you and others micheal moore fat and slovenly wealthy - this century's snake oil salesmen.

There is no doubt if the oceans dropped .001 when widespread desalination was in use the alarm would be "global cooling", that the next great ice age fast approaches... followed by, PAY ME to instruct on how to stop it and chance your lives as I say so.

50 years of predictable behavior from the eco-leftists and not a damn thing to show but billions of dollar making those alarmist, those at the top of course, gore-y with wealth.

"I can hear it now."
You're approaching it from making stuff up. The evidence shows greenhouse gases are changing the climate, potentially incurring huge costs in the future. There's no evidence of desalination, as far as I know, has environmental costs. I can easily seem making stuff up like that, but who cares about making up dreams or nightmares. We have to deal with reality.

I was referring to the comment in the article. First I had heard of it.

Have I missed something or has the western media completely dropped the ball on neglecting to tell the US the middle east is in the midst of a millennial drought, and that said drought is likely a primary driver in the middle east turmoil? That changes everything!

I will deal with the changing climate while I am alive. Leave it to others in the future to deal with changing climates in the future.

Climate has changed MANY times over the life of humanity.

energy and water go hand-in-hand as the most basic
future advantages for us, it seems -- and we are very lucky
here in the u.s. in both regards. . we are just stupid in the
"cultivation" of both! -- j
.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Unfortunately the rest of the Arab world lives fast and loose on oil profit. There is an old saying: "My father rode a camel. I ride a Mercedes. My children will ride camels."
Perhaps Saudi Arabia is trying to change similarly. We'll see.

One of my BW's cousins was a big deal in an Israeli support group and we were invited over to their house when an Israeli Minister of Something-or-other was the guest. This was back in the early 80s, and most of the entire evening was talking about Israel's desalinization projects. I even contributed some ideas that I gleaned from my SF readings. So, as you can see, this has been ongoing for many decades.

That is good news.

I didn't see any mention in the article the source of power to run the plant. I am told elsewhere it is nuclear power, and believe me that is the only source of power that's going to work.